Tuesday, December 21, 2010

[ZESTCaste] The dalit contract with India

http://www.india-seminar.com/2010/615/615_vinay_satapati.htm

The dalit contract with India

VINAY SITAPATI


IT was a hot May in Delhi in 2009, and listless crowds,
patrolled by the blue-capped Bahujan Volunteer force, made up the
Bahujan Samaj Party's pre-election rally in the Ram Lila Grounds.
Right up front was a large raised platform meant for the media. Its
scale was ironic as well as inevitable: ironic, because Mayawati has
made a career out of ignoring 'upper caste journalists' for
misrepresenting her politics; inevitable, because in a general
election otherwise too complex for sound bytes, the question: 'Will
India have its first Dalit woman prime minister?' had a clarifying
elegance to it. On either side of the media platform, and a good 500
metres from the podium, were her people. The distance between speaker
and spoken-to conveyed an imperium that went with Mayawati's politics
of dignity. Her rant against the conniving Congress, past holder and
current predator of her Dalit vote bank in Uttar Pradesh, also made
sense.

           What was puzzling was the speech itself. More than half of
it was devoted to details of the Constitution – from B.R. Ambedkar's
tussle with the Congress over its drafting, to the reservations and
empowerment it offers to Scheduled Castes six decades later.1
Sentences I had heard in the careful calibrations of law school, the
monotonous baritone of courts, and the air-conditioned confines of the
India International Centre were now being taught by a mass politician
to legions of her unlettered followers. I have since wondered about
the relationship between the Indian Constitution and Dalit politics.
What is the basis of this link in realpolitik; what is its
psychological character? And what does it say about India's founding
document, that sixty years on, the most prominent space it has in mass
politics is in the non-liberal articulations of former Untouchables?

           First, the obvious. The Constitution is used
instrumentally to strengthen Dalit representation in politics. Dalits
number 16.2 per cent of India's population. Since Article 330 of the
Constitution guarantees that 15 per cent of the Lok Sabha will be
occupied by Dalits only, they are adequately represented in the Lok
Sabha. Compare this to Muslims in India, who are roughly 13.4 per cent
of the population, but do not benefit from political reservations. As
a result, Muslim-centric parties (like the Muslim League) are
inconsequential; the percentage of Muslims in politics is far below
their national average. What makes Dalit politics even more impressive
is that Dalit votes tend to be split. Analyzing Dalit vote trends in
the 2009 elections, Rahul Verma found that rich urban Dalits tended to
vote for the Congress, while it was left to the poor, rural Dalits to
vote for the BSP. By contrast, Muslims – rich or poor, upper caste or
low caste – vote tactically for the same party.2 Yet Muslim electoral
politics is not able to compete with the Parliamentary quota that the
Constitution guarantees to Dalits.

           Conversely, reservations alone cannot explain Dalit
political power. Take the Scheduled Tribes, who are the only other
group allotted political reservations in the Constitution. Their
Ambedkar – the Oxford-educated Jaipal Singh Munda – was a forceful
voice in the Constituent Assembly debates. But this has not led to
tribal politics reaching anywhere near the organizational level of
Dalit politics. As Ramachandra Guha points out, 60 years after
Independence 'unlike Dalits, they [tribals] have been unable to
effectively articulate their grievances through the democratic and
electoral process.'3 One major reason why Dalits are able to organize
better is the shared experience of untouchablity, which connects Dalit
jatis scattered across the subcontinent. By contrast, there is little
to link tribals from central India (like Jaipal Singh) and tribals
from the North East. There are no shared social experiences to cause
them to vote as a block.

           Dalits are also numerous enough in several states to
benefit from India's first-past-the-post politics. In Uttar Pradesh,
for instance, where politicians typically need around 25 per cent of
the votes to win, the 20 per cent Dalit population begins with a head
start over other identity groups fighting for political spoils. But
even in areas where tribals are a majority, tribal politics is either
fragmented (Chhattisgarh) or mauled (Jharkhand). Besides, reserved
seats do not always benefit Dalit-only parties. In Uttar Pradesh, the
BJP has consistently won most of the reserved seats. Ajoy Bose, a
political biographer of Mayawati, explains it thus: 'Since all
candidates are Dalits, the Dalit vote is divided… the BJP's Dalit
candidate had the extra benefit of the party's traditional upper caste
base.'4 This is not necessarily a negative for Dalits: mainstream
parties with Dalit politicians can initiate caste compromises of the
kind Mayawati has recently attempted in UP, with her bid to woo that
state's Brahmin community. Political reservations provide a platform
to Dalit politicians for negotiating from a position of strength.

           Political reservations are only one half of the bridge
that leads to Dalit power; reservations in government jobs (Article
15(4)) and employment (Article 16(4)) are the other half.
Administrative reservations have helped in two ways. The first is that
they have created a Dalit elite whose members have gone on to stand
for political office. Mayawati's father was a (reserved) government
employee, and Behenji nurtured ambitions of writing the difficult
central administration exam (UPSC) before foraying into politics.5
Since rich Scheduled Castes can legally avail of quotas, the same
Dalit families – like Kumari Shailja's – have, in a couple of
generations, become a political elite.

           Beyond individual examples like Kanshi Ram, Mayawati and
Meira Kumar, lies yet another factor. Dalit government employees have
organized themselves within government, and this organizational
structure has formed the nucleus of a larger political movement
outside the steel frame of the bureaucracy. In 1978, Kanshi Ram formed
the Backward and Minority Communities Employees Federation, followed
by the Dalit Soshit Samaj Sangharsh Samithi (DS4), which eventually
became the political Bahujan Samaj Party.

           Dalit government employee organizations and student
federations, all beneficiaries of constitutional reservations, act as
feeders into Dalit parties or SC/ST cells within national parties –
much like the Student Federation of India feeds into the CPI(M), and
the ABVP and RSS provide young leaders to the BJP. The relationship
between Dalit government employees and political parties has been
ill-studied in academia so far. Anecdotal evidence suggests a potent
cycle. Perhaps this example captures it best: Ram Vilas Paswan heads a
Bihar-based Dalit party called the Lok Janshakti Party. Between 1996
and 2009, he was a regular feature in every union cabinet. He
repeatedly won from the reserved constituency of Hajipur in north
Bihar, and once held a Guinness record for winning an election there
by the largest ever margin. In 2003, he was invited to speak at a
conference in Berlin, with the banal title: 'Dalit politics is here to
stay'. This is what the veteran Dalit politician had to say:

           'We could significantly enforce the Presidential
Directives to include proportionate numbers of SCs and STs in the
Delegations going abroad… We could also appoint Mr Birke Ram, as
Director Finance of the big Railway Public Sector Corporation. Today
it is one of the highly profitable PSUs in the country… No SC/ST was
ever allowed to become the Cabinet Secretary to the Government of
India.'

           It is telling that his speech was not about electoral
politics, but about the nitty-gritty of administrative transfers and
postings.6 That was what he saw as the true import of Dalit politics.

           While the importance of political participation can't be
understated for any community that faces historical injustice and
discrimination, increased Dalit representation in politics does not
automatically mean that Dalit interests are better articulated. Dalit
parties like the BSP are not necessarily 'purer' than mainstream
parties like the Congress, where the necessity to woo Dalit voters has
to be balanced with the impetus to form a pan-Indian majority. The
close relationship between Dalit student, occupational, and political
formations also has its drawbacks. Apart from seeing state offices in
purely instrumental terms, it also makes other forms of Dalit identity
subservient to the political. Yet, for better or worse, this nexus
between political and administrative reservations has become the hinge
on which contemporary Dalit politics swings.

           So far I have described how the Constitution has created a
Dalit political and administrative elite who work in tandem,
incubating structures in government organizations before placing them
in the rough and tumble of electoral politics. But Mayawati's May 2009
speech hinted at a psychological role of the Constitution, one that
goes to the heart of contemporary Dalit politics.

           To understand this, it is critical to see constitutional
reservations for Dalits not as an idea of equality based on first
principles, but as a historic compromise; a result of political power
play within India's freedom movement. By the 1930s, the British faced
two major claimants for nationhood, in addition to the Indian National
Congress. Muhammad Ali Jinnah's Muslim League claimed to speak for
British India's 20 per cent Muslims, while B.R. Ambedkar claimed to
represent British India's 'Depressed Classes'. As Sunil Khilnani
points out, it was in the British interest to deny India freedom by
claiming that there were too many discrete Indian groups to form a
single, integrated nation.7

           Motivated at least in part by this latter argument, the
British announced, in 1932, the creation of 'communal electorates',
i.e. separate seats and voters for Dalits and Muslims. An agitated
Mohandas Gandhi went on a fast unto death against separate electorates
for Dalits. Faced with intense pressure from popular sympathy for an
ailing Gandhi, Ambedkar compromized, giving up on the demand that
Dalit voters be kept separate, but gaining reserved constituencies for
the 'depressed classes'. This Poona Pact of 1932 became the basis for
providing reservations to the 'depressed classes' in the Government of
India Act, 1935, which in turn, became the template for the
Constitution of India, 1950.

           This power-sharing agreement ended up benefiting both
Ambedkar and the Indian National Congress. As Sekhar Bandopadhyay
points out, from 1916 onwards, Dalit political assertion was propped
up by colonial patronage. But as Independence approached, Ambedkar's
party faced annihilation from the Congress' ability to put up Dalit
candidates and win Dalit votes.8 In the 1946 elections, the Congress
could accurately claim to represent the largest share of the Dalit
vote.9 The inclusion of Ambedkar in the Constituent Assembly, and of
the terms of the Poona Pact in the Constitution, were thus welcome
steps for Ambedkar. For the Indian National Congress, the immediate
benefit of the Poona Pact was to put an end to the idea of a separate
Dalit nation. This might seem trifling today, but as late as 1940
Ambedkar harboured dreams of a separate country for Dalits. In his
book Pakistan or the Partition of India, he argued that 'the transfer
of minorities is the only lasting remedy for communal peace.'10

           But the most far-reaching implication of the incorporation
of the Poona Pact by the Constituent Assembly was that the
Constitution became the Dalit contract with the Indian nation. That
contract is not in sync with the liberal nationalism that Nehruvian
interpreters of India's Constitution like to extol. It is, instead, a
hard-nosed power-sharing agreement between groups, more in the nature
of the agreement between Christians and Shi'ites in Lebanon or the
Constitution of post-Apartheid South Africa. Using examples from these
two countries, Leonard Wantchekon points out that power-sharing
agreements are necessary for the transition from a state of conflict
to a state of democracy.11 The Poona Pact, that violates notions of
formal equality and contributes to what is wryly described as the
Constitution's 'asymmetric discrimination principle',12 was perhaps
necessary to avoid the alienation of the Scheduled Castes from the
Indian mainstream.

           Wantchekon's research also shows that once democracy
comes, the majority is tempted to renege on the power-sharing
agreement. It speaks of the wisdom of the national movement that in
1950 – when the Congress was not only in power in India, but had
trumped Ambedkar for the Dalit vote – it resisted the temptation to
renege on the Poona Pact. The move, instead, to appoint Ambedkar law
minister and head of the drafting committee had the symbolic value of
sealing the Constitution in the eyes of subsequent non-Congress Dalit
politicians (even if Ambedkar resigned soon after). Since then, the
Indian Constitution has been amended to provide the same reservation
benefits to a numerical majority (Other Backward Classes). The logic
of the Poona Pact, meant to protect a minority from the vagaries of
the majority, has been turned on its head. Yet, reservations for the
numerical majority ensure that the logic of the Poona Pact will never
be questioned; reservations for Dalits is unlikely to be withdrawn.

           Benedict Anderson argues that 'political symbols play a
major part in the way a nation is depicted and fed into the
imagination of its citizens.'13 The most famous Dalit totems in modern
India are the blue-suited Ambedkar statues.14 They dot entrances to
Dalit bastis in Indian villages and demarcate spaces in urban India
where Dalit politics has gained a foothold. For a group that has been
defined by physical exclusion, the power of these statues comes from
their placement. Mayawati's statue parks in Uttar Pradesh have the
same aim – capture physical space, and in doing so create history for
those who have been denied it for centuries. The political symbolism
of the constitutional reservations for Dalits also lies in their
placement. The Constitution is a mere collection of words, but it aims
to map out the geography of Indian nationhood. The symbolism of the
constitutional provisions for Dalits is that it carves out 15 per cent
of this national space for Dalits, and in doing so creates the
historic basis for shared nationhood. In that sense, its symbolism is
similar to that of the Ambedkar statues.

           Our political landscape has altered since the Constitution
was enacted. The decline of the Congress and the growth of region- and
caste-based parties have ensured that in a first-past-the-post-system,
Dalits, a significant numerical minority, have increased bargaining
power. The decline of the Congress has also led Dalits to vote for
other parties. In the run up to Independence, Ambedkar's party was
roundly defeated in the 1946 Constituent Assembly elections. By
contrast, today's Dalit parties either win power (BSP) or gain
significant vote share (LJP, RPI). The fact that the Constitution has
allowed and facilitated these electoral and rhetorical shifts speaks
volumes for its elasticity.

           In the sixty-three years since India's Independence,
diverse ethnic, linguistic or ideological groups – whether championing
language chauvinism in Tamil Nadu, separatism in Kashmir, or rebellion
in the red corridor – have questioned India's Constitution. Each of
these identity groups benefits from special constitutional provisions.
Linguistic groups, around whom the states were reorganized in 1956,
benefit from the federal provisions of the Constitution. In addition,
Article 30(1) provides ethnic, linguistic and religious groups
autonomy in their higher educational institutions. Kashmir enjoys
relative autonomy through the controversial Article 370; tribal areas
have similar rights. But these 'group rights' can still be justified
within liberal jurisprudence – they don't have anything like the
slice-of-cake logic that the Poona Pact ensured. This perhaps explains
why Dalit politicians have never criticized the Constitution, only
interpreted it their way.

           Mayawati ended up on the wrong side of the 2009 general
elections; her Delhi speech proved to be in vain. Not only did she win
fewer seats than expected, she lost out to the Congress's resurgence
in her home state of Uttar Pradesh. The Third Front on which her prime
ministerial ambition was tethered, was undone by the Congress and the
BJP. Yet while the opportunist in Mayawati has one eye on tomorrow's
elections, her other eye is on history. She continues to build statues
of herself and her Dalit pantheon, continues to sprinkle her speeches
with references to the Constitution of India. Symbols are for
posterity as well as expediency and sixty years on, the Dalit contract
with Indian nationhood shows no sign of ageing.

           Footnotes:

           1. 'Dalit' is a political term referring to ex-untouchable
castes. 'Scheduled Caste' is a legal term, which excludes Christian
and Muslim Dalits. This essay uses both phrases interchangeably.

           2. Rahul Verma, 'Dalit Voting Patterns', Economic and
Political Weekly 44(39), 2009.

           3. Ramachandra Guha, 'Adivasis, Naxalites and Indian
Democracy', Economic and Political Weekly 45(32), 2007.

           4. In conversation with the author, May 2009.

           5. Ajoy Bose, Behenji: A Political Biography of Mayawati.
Delhi, 2008.

           6. http://www.dalitindia.com/guest/Dalit Pol.htm

           7. Sunil Khilnani, 'Arguing Democracy: Intellectuals and
Politics in Modern India', CASI Working Paper Series 9(2), 2009.

           8. Sekhar Bandyopadhyay, 'Transfer of Power and the Crisis
of Dalit Politics in India, 1945-47', Modern Asian Studies 34(4),
2000.

           9. Id.

           10. B.R. Ambedkar, Pakistan, or the Partition of India.
Bombay, 1940. c.f. Sunil Khilnani, op cit.

           11. Leonard Wantchekon, 'Credible Power-Sharing
Agreements: Theory With Evidence From South Africa and Lebanon',
Constitutional Political Economy 11(4), 2000.

           12. Sudhir Krishnaswamy and Madhav Khosla, 'Reading A.K.
Thakur v. Union of India: Legal Effect and Significance', Economic &
Political Weekly 43(29), 2008.

           13. Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections
on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism. London, 1983.

           14. Nicolas Jaoul, 'Learning the Use of Symbolic Means:
Dalits, Ambedkar Statues and the State in Uttar Pradesh',
Contributions to Indian Sociology 40(175), 2006.
           top


------------------------------------

----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ZESTCaste] Recognising caste discrimination will improve life for Britain's Dalits

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/21/racism-caste-isabel-wilkerson?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Recognising caste discrimination will improve life for Britain's Dalits

Isabel Wilkerson's The Warmth of Other Suns helps to reframe the
debate about the relationship between race and caste

Nina Martyris
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 21 December 2010 15.34 GMT

One of 2010's most feted books has been The Warmth of Other Suns by
Isabel Wilkerson, a powerful history of the 20th-century migration of
African-American families from America's deeply segregated south. Epic
in the scale of its hurt and hope, it tells the largely untold story
of a people fleeing a society of segregation and lynchings to start
more fulfilling lives in Chicago, New York and the west coast. In
these anonymous sprawls, racial prejudice may have been alive and well
in people's heads but the crucial difference was that it wasn't
sanctioned by policy and pulpit.

I watched the Pulitzer prize-winning Wilkerson talk on television
about her book and was struck by the number of times and the
deliberation with which she used the term "caste system" to describe
the purist infrastructure of Jim Crow country, whose codes were as
repugnant as the pollution laws of untouchable India. I phoned her at
Boston University and she confirmed something that, strangely enough,
has escaped reviewer attention: nowhere in the 622-page book does the
word "racism" occur. Wilkerson even did a word search to make sure it
wasn't there.

"Racism is such a divisive, loaded word that it has become shorthand
for all kinds of things," she explained. "Using the term 'caste
system' not only forces readers to challenge notions of how race and
class play out in the US, it also places an ethnic equation in a
larger historical structure. I prefer caste system because I believe
it better characterises the larger forces at work. It focuses on
structure rather than emotion, it answers so many questions about the
behaviour of people at all levels of the caste system and explains why
those perceived to benefit from it will work so hard to maintain it,
and why those at the bottom of it would be driven to do whatever it
takes to escape it."

In a timely coincidence, her decision shines the searchlight on that
contentious human-rights nettle of whether caste can be included under
race law. An issue of political significance now, with Britain on its
way to being the first western country to do so with the Equality Act
2010. Last week, the National Institute of Economic and Social
Research (NIESR) published its long-awaited study, which states that
caste discrimination does exist in the UK among people of Indian
origin across religions, who comprise 5% of the population.

Several British-Indian forums have opposed listing caste as an aspect
of race (as, historically, have the Indian government and several
distinguished scholars) on the academic point that a caste-race
conflation is scientifically false and that education, not
legislation, will change mindsets.

Britain's Dalits, who have lobbied hard for the law, say that the
debate is wrongly framed. Even if caste and race are not the same, the
experience of being inferior meted out by castism and racism is unique
and like no other. Which is why civil rights leaders like Martin
Luther King Jr have compared the status of African-Americans to
India's untouchables and Dalit literature (Dalit means "broken
people", the earlier term was "untouchable") has drawn inspiration
from revolutionary black literature and the civil rights movement.

The Warmth of Other Suns helps reframe the debate. Wilkerson does not
glibly seek to substitute race with caste – she readily points out
that it is a false equivalence. Instead, she uses terminology to show
that the two are complementary systems of oppression that feed off and
belong with each other. As fellow-travellers of feudalism, they are
"bound up inextricably in society's DNA" with race being used to
justify a caste system whose imperatives are essentially economic – to
perpetuate a workforce to carry out the odious and difficult tasks of
society (whether it is scavenging or cotton picking) for little or no
pay.

For the African-Americans in Wilkerson's narrative and for many of the
UK and US's Dalits, migration was an act of secession from an
oppressive social order. Of course, these families soon found that
prejudice is a nifty migrant, too, and that old customs quickly take
root in unaccustomed earth. One well-known Dalit writer from Mumbai
recalled how he had dropped into a pub in Southall in 1992 and found
scribbled on the wall: "Chamars (untouchables) and dogs not allowed."

And while it may be impossible simply to legislate caste
discrimination out of people's memories – India has progressive laws
but prejudice persists – parliamentary cognisance will not only
provide protection in the workplace and schoolroom, it has effectively
pulled the shroud off the elephant in the room. The Equality Act's
specific listing of caste is a brave step toward acknowledging the
persistence of an ancient affliction and an affirmation to Britain's
Dalits that their new country, however watery the warmth of its fitful
sun, cares about their freedom.


------------------------------------

----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ZESTCaste] Fight superstition with science (Opinion)

http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/columns/article963344.ece

Opinion » Columns
December 20, 2010
Fight superstition with science
S. Viswanathan

S. Viswanathan, Readers' Editor, The Hindu

"India is a curious mixture of scientific advance and traditional
superstitions. Superstitions are deeply ingrained and cannot be
eliminated overnight. They cannot be removed by diktat, but can be
countered by rational arguments…" — Jayant V. Narlikar.

Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Mayawati has taken strong exception to a
ritual performed at a temple in southern Karnataka on December 10,
2010. After watching the telecast of the ritual on a news channel, the
Chief Minister demanded an immediate ban on the practice which drove
Dalits to roll on used plantain leaves with leftovers of the food
eaten by "upper caste" people. Dalits did so believing that the ritual
would cure them of skin diseases. Characterising the practice as
"inhuman, humiliating, and derogatory," Ms Mayawati added that "it was
quite apparent that the objective behind the practice was only to
humiliate the socially downtrodden," because Dalits constitute the
majority of the participants

The temple at the centre of the controversy is the Kukke Subramanya
temple in Subramanya village in the Dakshina Kannada district of
Karnataka. The village is about 100 km from the port town of
Mangalore. The "urulu seve" (rolling ritual) was held after appeals
from several progressive organisations to the government, the temple
authorities, and math heads to put an end to the "unhygienic and
unwanted" ritual failed. When the police denied them permission to
stage a demonstration, the protesters left the temple premises.
Inhuman ritual

Many newspapers have published detailed accounts of the performance of
the rituals by hundreds of people from different regions of the State.
A number of TV channels, including popular ones, have given wide
coverage. Most reporters of the print and broadcast media did a
commendable job, not concealing their disapproval of the inhuman
ritual. The extensive and sensitive coverage took the issue to a
larger audience.

The temple authorities repeatedly "clarified" that not only Dalits,
but also people from other castes, including Brahmins, performed the
ritual and did so of their own accord. Journalists on the scene
confirmed that the participants in the "urulu seve" included
non-Dalits but pointed out that Dalit participants accounted for the
majority of the participants in the ritual. Another point made in the
reports was that apart from the indignity caused to Dalits on caste
grounds, all participants would run the risk of getting infected. In
short, the practice was depicted as inhuman as well as anti-science.
Taking on superstition

Others on the scene included activists such as social reformer G.K.
Govinda Rao and folklorist Kale Gowda Nagawara. They did not succeed
in stopping the performance of the ritual, or in dissuading the
participants but they had struck a blow for humanity and for science.
Such interventions generally take time to show results.

A curtain raiser, published in the Mysore edition of The Hindu on
December 8, noted that significantly the ritual perhaps for the first
time in its 400 years of existence had to confront a protest from
Dalit and backward class organisations. On December 7 the activists of
these organisations from Mysore, Kodagu, and Sulia arrived in
substantial numbers at Subramanya village to persuade the temple
authorities to stop this undesirable ritual, and advise the devotees
who were inclined to participate to keep off. Just how many of the
participants responded is yet to be known. The activists met the seer
of the Kukke Subramanya math, who has reportedly agreed that the
ritual was "a social evil" but could not go further because, in his
view, a 400-year-old ritual could not be stopped "immediately."

Taking on age-old superstition is a strenuous process and demands a
lot of dedication and dogged patience. What is needed to end such
practices is a multi-pronged campaign by the media but also by
teachers, doctors and scientists. Science journalists have the
potential to educate the readers on developing a scientific temper.
The government, of course, has a big responsibility in this regard.
Article 51-A (h) of the Constitution of India states: "It shall be the
duty of every citizen of India to develop the scientific temper,
humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform." The government should
take this message to larger sections of the people, especially in the
countryside.

readerseditor@thehindu.co.in


------------------------------------

----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ZESTCaste] Man gets life imprisonment for killing dalit woman

 

http://news.in.msn.com/national/article.aspx?cp-documentid=4726139

22/12/2010
Man gets life imprisonment for killing dalit woman

Azamgarh, Dec 21 (PTI) A man accused in the murder of a dalit woman
was today awarded life imprisonment by a local court here.
Fast Track Court Judge Satya Prakash Tripathi today pronounced the
judgement and awarded life sentence and penalty of Rs 5,000 to
Swaminath Yadav alias Mitthan under section 304 IPC (culpable
homicide).
Mitthan allegedly killed a dalit lady Guraichi devi on January 25, 2007.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/
.

__,_._,___

[ZESTCaste] Rs 1.5 lakh for Dalit girls’ mother

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Rs-1-5-lakh-for-Dalit-girls--mother/727788

Rs 1.5 lakh for Dalit girls' mother

Express news service Posted online: Wed Dec 22 2010, 00:31 hrs
New Delhi : Two days after the Moradabad police said that the
suspected mob killing of two Dalit girls in Kothiwal Nagar was a
"suicide", the city magistrate has awarded a compensation of Rs 1.5
lakh to their mother. Senior officials also assured the agitating
Valmiki community of a fair probe. The probe will now be headed by
Assistant SP and Circle Officer (Civil Lines) Vinod Kumar Singh.

The compensation announcement came after the issue threatened to
snowball, with over 1,400 safai karamcharis of Moradabad starting an
indefinite strike. After the announcement of the relief, the strike
was called off.

The National Commission for Scheduled Castes, led by known Mayawati
baiter P L Punia, too got into the picture and sent a team to
Moradabad on Tuesday. Punia told The Indian Express: "Officials of the
district administration and the police are responsible for the death
of the Dalit sisters. Our team has conducted an inquiry, and the
commission would get a case registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act against erring officials according to the findings.
The girls were killed, it was not a case of suicide."

Geeta (25) and Neetu (22) were allegedly burnt alive inside their
house by a mob on Saturday. The girls' brothers were named in the
murder of a local trader's wife and eight-year-old daughter, and they
had been facing constant taunts and threats from the neighbourhood.

A case has been registered against the trader whose wife and daughter
were killed, Pankaj Gagneja, and seven others for murder and under
various sections of the SC/ST Act.

On Tuesday top officers met the mother of the girl, Rajkali, and
assured her that the matter was being taken up at the highest level.


------------------------------------

----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ZESTCaste] Dalit girls’ death: It was murder, not suicide, say panels in chorus

http://www.indianexpress.com/news/dalit-girls-death-it-was-murder-not-suicide-say-panels-in-chorus/727900/

Dalit girls' death: It was murder, not suicide, say panels in chorus

Express News Service Posted online: Wed Dec 22 2010, 01:57 hrs

lucknow : The teams of the National Commission for Scheduled Castes
and the National Commission for Safai Karamcharis, which visited
Moradabad on Tuesday to inquire into the deaths of two Dalit sisters
on Saturday, said the girls were killed, and blamed the local
officials for the tragedy.

Both the teams rejected the district administration's claim that the
girls had committed suicide, unable to bear the taunts of neighbours
after their brothers were booked in a case of double murder.

The NCSC team was led by member Raju Parmar while Swaraj Jeevan headed
the NCSK team.

NCSC chairman PL Punia told The Indian Express, "The officials of the
district administration and the police are responsible for the death
of the Dalit sisters. Our team has conducted an inquiry and the
commission would get a case under the SC/ST Atrocity Act registered
against erring officials according to the findings. The girls were
killed and it was not a case of suicide."

Jeevan said, "We conducted an inquiry and found that the mother of the
victims had been requesting senior officials of the police and the
administration for security since December 9. She feared attack on her
and her daughters, but the officials hurled abuses at her and shooed
her away from their offices."

He further said, "It is a case of murder and I am recommending action
against the District Magistrate and the DIG of Moradabad, holding them
responsible for the killing of two Dalit girls and getting a false
case of robbery and murder fabricated against the Dalit girls'
brothers Rakesh and Rajesh."

Both the teams visited the house in Kothiwal Nagar where the charred
bodies of Geeta and Neetu alias Monu were found and recorded the
statement of their mother who was present in the house at the time of
the incident. The teams also spoke to their neighbours.

Later, the teams met the doctors who conducted the postmortem
examination of the two girls, and the forensic experts who had
examined the room. They also recorded the statements of the local SHO,
the Circle Officer, the SP (City), and the City Magistrate who had
visited the spot on December 18.

Parmar and Jeevan met the DIG and the DM and inquired about the steps
they had taken in the matter.

Moradabad DIG Ashok Kumar said he gave all details to the members of
both the commissions and replied to their queries. "The investigation
would find out if the mother's allegation that Geeta and Neetu were
set ablaze by a mob is true," the DIG said. He said the police had
already registered a case under various sections of IPC and the SC/ST
Act and an Assistant SP was conducting the investigation.

Rajjo Devi had alleged in her complaint that a mob entered her house
and set her daughters ablaze after outraging their modesty.

Her sons, Rajesh and Rakesh, were arrested after Pankaj Gagneja, who
lives in the same locality, had lodged a complaint, naming them for
the murder of his wife Pooja and daughter Sania, and robbery at his
house on December 9.

While Rajesh was arrested the next day, Rakesh is on the run.


------------------------------------

----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ZESTCaste] What is constitutional morality? (Pratap Bhanu Mehta)

http://www.india-seminar.com/2010/615/615_pratap_bhanu_mehta.htm

What is constitutional morality?

PRATAP BHANU MEHTA

           THE phrase 'constitutional morality' has, of late, begun
to be widely used. Yet the phrase rarely crops up in discussions
around the Constituent Assembly. Of the three or four scattered uses
of the phrase, only one reference has any intellectual significance.
This is, of course, Ambedkar's famous invocation of the phrase in his
speech 'The Draft Constitution', delivered on 4 November 1948. In the
context of defending the decision to include the structure of the
administration in the Constitution, he quotes at great length the
classicist, George Grote. The quotation is worth reproducing in full:

           The diffusion of 'constitutional morality', not merely
among the majority of any community, but throughout the whole is the
indispensable condition of a government at once free and peaceable;
since even any powerful and obstinate minority may render the working
of a free institution impracticable, without being strong enough to
conquer ascendance for themselves.1

           What did Grote mean by 'constitutional morality'? Ambedkar
quotes Grote again:

           By constitutional morality, Grote meant… a paramount
reverence for the forms of the constitution, enforcing obedience to
authority and acting under and within these forms, yet combined with
the habit of open speech, of action subject only to definite legal
control, and unrestrained censure of those very authorities as to all
their public acts combined, too with a perfect confidence in the bosom
of every citizen amidst the bitterness of party contest that the forms
of constitution will not be less sacred in the eyes of his opponents
than his own.

           In Grote's rendition, 'constitutional morality' had a
meaning different from two meanings commonly attributed to the phrase.
In contemporary usage, constitutional morality has come to refer to
the substantive content of a constitution. To be governed by a
constitutional morality is, on this view, to be governed by the
substantive moral entailment any constitution carries. For instance,
the principle of non-discrimination is often taken to be an element of
our modern constitutional morality. In this sense, constitutional
morality is the morality of a constitution.

           There was a second usage that Ambedkar was more familiar
with from its 19th century provenance. In this view, constitutional
morality refers to the conventions and protocols that govern
decision-making where the constitution vests discretionary power or is
silent.

           But Grote's use of the term was different from these two
uses, and more important for Ambedkar's purposes. Ambedkar was making
a series of historical claims about constitutionalism. Like Grote, he
had little doubt that constitutional morality was rare. It was not a
'natural sentiment'. The purpose of Grote's History of Greece had
been, in part, to rescue Athenian democracy from the condescension of
its elitist critics like Plato and Thucydides, and argue that Athenian
democracy had, even if briefly, achieved elements of a genuine
constitutional morality.

           For Grote, there were only two other plausible instances
of a constitutional morality having been remotely realized: the
aristocratic combination of liberty and self-restraint experienced in
1688 in England, and American constitutionalism. All other attempts at
enshrining a constitutional morality had grievously foundered. For
Ambedkar, this note of historical caution simply added to his worries
about India. Democracy in India was only, as he put it, 'top dressing
on Indian soil, which is essentially undemocratic.'2 Our people have
'yet to learn' constitutional morality.

           What are the elements of constitutional morality that
Ambedkar is so concerned about? His invocation of Grote is meant not
as a reference merely to historical rarity, but also as a pointer to
the distinctiveness of constitutionalism as a mode of association. In
both the 4 November 1948 speech and the final 'Reply to the Debate' on
25 November 1949, Ambedkar – amidst discussions of a whole range of
substantive issues such as federalism, rights, decentralization, and
parliamentary government – returns to elements of constitutional
morality prefigured in his use of Grote. For him, the real anxiety was
not 'Constitution' the noun, as much as the adverbial practice it
entailed.

           For Grote, the central elements of constitutional morality
were freedom and self-restraint. Self-restraint was a precondition for
maintaining freedom under properly constitutional government. The most
political expression of a lack of self-restraint was revolution.
Indeed constitutional morality was successful only in so far as it
warded off revolution. Ambedkar also takes on the explicitly
anti-revolutionary tones of constitutionalism. In a strikingly odd
passage, he says that the maintenance of democracy requires that we
must 'hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and
economic objectives. It must mean that we abandon the bloody methods
of revolution. It means we must abandon the method of civil
disobedience, non-cooperation and satyagraha.'3

           In one stroke, both violent revolution and passive
resistance are equated as exemplifying a kind of excess and lack of
self-restraint incompatible with constitutional morality. The tacit
equivalence he posits between satyagraha and violence has roots in
Ambedkar's experience of satyagraha as a form of coercion. It is a
feature of constitutional morality that while government is subject to
the full force of criticism, this criticism must, in some sense, be
'pacific' criticism.

           Ambedkar dismisses an entire repertoire of political
action used during the nationalist movement as being incompatible with
the demands of constitutional morality, as he understood it. These
forms of political action continue to be seen by many as essential to
democracy, though it is doubtful that Ambedkar would have admitted
them within the ambit of constitutional morality. But there is perhaps
a deeper element at play in his ruling out satyagraha as incompatible
with the basics of constitutional morality. And this in part springs
from his understanding of the distinctiveness of constitutional
morality.

           For the second element of constitutional morality is the
recognition of plurality in its deepest form. What is surprising is
that Ambedkar turns out to be as, if not more, committed to a form of
non-violence as Gandhi. For him, respecting constitutional forms is
the only way in which a genuinely non-violent mode of political action
can come into being. For the central challenge in a political society
is the management and adjudication of differences – though what
Ambedkar had in mind were more differences of opinion than of
identity.

           The only way of non-violent resolution amidst this fact of
difference is securing some degree of unanimity on a constitutional
process, a form of adjudication that can mediate difference.
Unilaterally declaring oneself to be in possession of the truth,
setting oneself up as a judge in one's own cause, or acting on the
dictates of one's conscience might be heroic acts of personal
integrity. But they do not address the central problem that a
constitutional form is trying to address, namely the existence of a
plurality of agents, each with his/her own convictions, opinions and
claims.

           Constitutional morality requires submitting these to the
adjudicative contrivances that are central to any constitution –
parliament, courts and so on. In the face of difference, the only
point of unanimity that one can seek is over an appropriately designed
adjudicative process. This is one reason, for example, why Ambedkar
does not think socialism should be part of the constitution, even
though equality is of paramount concern to him. What the parties have
to agree to, as Ambedkar recognizes over and over, is an allegiance to
a constitutional form, not an allegiance to a particular substance.

           Therefore, constitutional morality requires that
allegiance to the constitution is non-transactional. The essence of
constitutional morality is that allegiance to the constitution cannot
be premised upon it leading to outcomes that are a mirror image of any
agent's beliefs. A constitutional morality requires putting up with
the possibility that what eventually emerges from a process is very
different from what citizens had envisaged.

           The third element of constitutional morality is its
suspicion of any claims to singularly and uniquely represent the will
of the people. This is most deeply manifest in Ambedkar's hostility to
any personification of political authority. In part what rendered
satyagraha ominous, from a constitutional point of view, was not just
its uncompromising character; it was also the fact that its agents saw
themselves as personifying the good of the whole. Ambedkar is hugely
suspicious of any form of hero worship – now a rather ironic fear in
an age in which Ambedkar himself has been deified. But this suspicion
of personification was part of a larger sensibility that formed a
crucial element of his constitutional morality: he was suspicious of
any claims to embody popular sovereignty. This may be a somewhat
surprising claim to attribute to Ambedkar, and with him other
architects of the Constitution. But the evidence of this is
unmistakable.

           Thus Ambedkar is very reluctant to see any branch of
government, whether it be the legislature or the courts, or even the
Constituent Assembly itself, as being able to claim authoritatively
that it embodies popular sovereignty and can speak in its name. He is
often suspicious of the legislature's claim to do so (for instance, in
his argument for why the form of administration should not be
entrusted to the legislature). His defence of a relatively easy
process of amending the constitution rests on a halfway compromise
between, on the one hand, a radical Jeffersonianism that would subject
the constitution to renegotiation at every generation and, on the
other, a rigid constitution that would deeply entrench the present
generation's preferences.

           In short, any appeal to popular sovereignty has to be
tempered by a sense that the future may have at least as valid claims
as the present. Indeed, it has to be said of the Constituent Assembly
as a whole, that there is very little demagoguery in the name of
popular sovereignty. Almost never is a claim advanced or defended on
the ground that it somehow represents the will of the people. Often
the discourse is more centred on the responsibility to the people.
This is not simply because the Constituent Assembly was not elected by
universal suffrage; nor was it simply a product of elitism trying to
keep popular sovereignty at bay. It was rather because there was a
deeper grasp of a political truth: any claims to speak on behalf of
popular sovereignty are attempts to usurp its authority. No claim to
represent popular sovereignty therefore, should ever be considered
fully convincing; the chief purpose of constitutional government is to
challenge governmental, or any other claims to represent the people.

           One piece of evidence for this is Ambedkar's defence of
the parliamentary form of government because it embodies what he calls
the principle of 'responsibility'. By this he means that the executive
will be subject to 'daily assessment'. While elections will give an
opportunity for the people to engage in what he calls 'periodic
assessment', the arsenal of parliamentary democracy will facilitate
daily assessment in the form of resolutions to no confidence motions,
debates to adjournment motions, etc. Whether or not he was right about
a parliamentary system of government is debatable, but it is deeply
interesting that he sees parliament's function as questioning any
claims the government might make to embody popular opinion or
sovereignty simply on account of its majority.

           The function of parliament is not so much to represent
popular sovereignty as it is to debate and constantly question
government. But, paradoxically, this is to prevent government from
claiming monopoly over popular will. There is not a single place in
the debates where the protagonists raise the following questions: What
form of democracy will best represent the will of the people? The
predominant focus is on multiplying rather than on questioning claims
to represent the people. Although someone like Nehru was occasionally
impatient with institutions like the court, the subsequent contest
between the judiciary and legislature can be seen as yet another
exemplification of the Constitution's impulse that there should be no
singularly authoritative arbiter of either popular will, or
constitutional interpretation.

           It is a concern for criticism rather than representation
of popular will that ties Ambedkar most closely to Grote's invocation
of constitutional morality. After all, the burden of Grote's great
history of Athenian democracy was to defuse the criticism of Athens
that popular sovereignty was a threat to freedom and individuality.
Once popular sovereignty or the authority of the people had been
invoked, who else would have any authority to speak? Grote defused
this anxiety in a novel way. Allegiance to forms of constitution was
not to be confused with deference to popular sovereignty. The claim by
a government that it represented popular sovereignty did not, by
itself, have any authority. Its claims and decisions could still be
interrogated, censured and subject to unrestrained criticism. Indeed,
what Athenian constitutional practice had achieved was precisely this:
the space for unrestrained criticism that was nevertheless 'pacific
and bloodless' and not silenced by claiming the authority of the
people.

           This account of constitutional morality may seem to
emphasize the formal elements: self-restraint, respect for plurality,
deference to processes, scepticism about authoritative claims to
popular sovereignty, and the concern for an open culture of criticism
that remains at the core of constitutional forms. These may seem
rather commonplace, but Ambedkar had little doubt that the
subjectivity that embodied these elements was rare and difficult to
achieve. Ambedkar grasped singularly the core of the constitutional
revolution: it was an association sustained not by a commonality of
ends, or unanimity over substantive objectives (except at perhaps a
very high level of generality). It was rather a form of political
organization sustained by certain ways of doing things. It was
sustained not so much by objectives as by the conditions through which
they were realized. This was the core of constitutional morality.

           A constitution thus was not a relationship between
concrete persons, but rather a relationship between abstract personae
bound together by abstract rules. It is precisely this abstraction,
this distance from specific persons and wished for substantive
outcomes that allowed a constitutional culture to emerge. Ambedkar was
a powerful and trenchant critic of caste. In this context, caste was
an impediment to constitutional morality in a very specific way. It is
the form of social existence that prevented the emergence of those
abstract personae so central to constitutional morality. It is the one
particularity that constantly undermines the formation of the self,
central to constitutional morality. For constitutional morality
requires various forms of dissociation: the ability to dissociate a
person from their views; the ability to trust someone despite deep
disagreement based on the knowledge that there is a shared agreement
on processes to adjudicate that disagreement. Caste identity, by its
very character, made such dissociation impossible.

           For Ambedkar, without fraternity, 'equality and liberty
would be no deeper than coats of paint.'4 Nowhere does Ambedkar make
the argument that the Constitution is about distribution of power
among different castes. Caste embodies a principle of social
separation, and is, to use his phrase, 'anti-national'.5 Its very
existence precludes an ability to abstract from one's identity. It
ensures that the relationship between groups is perpetually
competitive. A constitutional morality, by contrast, requires both
these features – abstraction and agreement or cooperation. It requires
the presumption that we are equal. However, that equality is possible
only when for constitutional purposes our caste identities do not
matter. A constitutional morality requires the sense that despite all
differences we are part of a common deliberative enterprise.

           But there are still several good reasons to unpack the
references to constitutional morality. First, we simply need to
complicate our understanding of how our framers understood the
Constitution. Formalism of a certain kind was central to their
imagination of the Constitution as a mode of association. Second, it
is a striking fact that while Ambedkar recognized the contradictions
between the actual injustice and constitutional aspirations, he did
not collapse the Constitution into a doctrine of distributive justice.
Implicit in his invocation of the contradiction is a dual-track
conception of justice. There is constitutional justice, defined by
certain rights and procedures. There is also substantive justice,
embodied in debates over private property and the rival claims of
socialism versus capitalism.

           In a way the constitutional discourse is caught between
two impulses. On the one hand it wants to say that we can rise above
these particular disagreements and provide a framework where both
parties can contend; the rights of those who build billion dollar
homes can contend with the claims of those who demand more radical
forms of redistribution. Our Constitution has space for both
socialists and capitalists or, to take another example, those who
radically disagree over reservation. Constitutional morality is simply
the conditions one subscribes to in determining the outcome, whatever
that might be.

           On the other hand, we might feel that there is something
unstable about the political psychology associated with this
dissociation of constitutional from distributive justice. Can citizens
really be committed to a framework that allows both goals at once: the
rights of the billion-dollar home owner and a commitment to
redistribution? In almost all his speeches, Ambedkar himself wrestles
with this tension: Can a constitution survive without a singular
conception of distributive justice underlying it?

           In the final analysis, he pitches for constitutional
morality, an allegiance to constitutional forms, rather than
collapsing the domains of constitutional and distributive justice. He
doesn't cheat by giving us the (false) assurance that the forms of
constitutional morality will produce deep substantive equality; nor
does he cheat by saying that substantive equality simply is the same
thing as constitutional morality. No society has yet adequately
negotiated the tension between the domain of constitutional morality
and the domain of substantive justice. He wanted a revolution, but
never became a revolutionary.

           The final reason for focusing on constitutional morality
is historical. What was the nature of the Constituent Assembly's
achievement? It is fair to say that it became a supreme exemplar of
what Ambedkar defined as constitutional morality. This is a
sensibility that few analysts of the Constitution can recover. They
are often fixated on transactional views of the Constitution,
measuring it by a yardstick of justice external to its purposes.
Perhaps the frame of constitutional morality can direct our attention
to a crucial question: What kind of a political sensibility was
required to make a constitution possible?

           Constitutions not only allocate authority, define the
limits of power or enunciate values. They also constitute our sense of
history and shape a sense of self. They often mark a new beginning and
define future horizons. Despite the centrality of the Constitution to
our social and political life, it has been ill-served by our
historical imagination. In a very mundane sense, with a handful of
exceptions, there is no serious or deep historiography associated with
our Constitution, one that can put it in proper historical and
philosophical perspective.

           The promulgation of India's Constitution was made possible
by a sensibility that few contemporary historians can recover. While
the Constitution was an extraordinary work of synthesis, our
historical imagination is given to divisiveness. There is no more
striking example of this than the way in which members of the
Constituent Assembly have been divided up and appropriated, rather
than seen in relation to each other. Ambedkar, Patel, Nehru, Prasad
and a host of others are now icons in partisan ideological battles, as
if to describe Ambedkar as a Dalit, or Patel as proto-BJP, or Nehru as
a Congressman exhausts all that needs to be said about them.

           The greatness of each one of them consists not just in the
distinctive points of view they brought together, but their
extraordinary ability to work together despite so many differences.
Congress itself facilitated the entry of so many people with an
anti-Congress past into key roles in the Assembly. It takes a willful
historical amnesia to forget the fact that the men and women of the
Assembly worked with an extraordinary consciousness that they needed
and completed each other. The historiography of the Constituent
Assembly has not regarded it as an exemplar of constitutional
morality. It has rather assessed it on a much more ideological
yardstick.

           The ability to work with difference was augmented by
another quality that is rarer still: the ability to acknowledge true
value. This may be attributed to the sheer intellectualism of so many
of the members. Their collective philosophical depth, historical
knowledge, legal and forensic acumen and sheer command over language
is enviable. It ensured that the grounds of discussion remained
intellectual. Also remarkable was their ability to acknowledge
greatness in others. It was this quality that allowed Nehru and Patel,
despite deep differences in outlook and temperament, to acknowledge
each other. Their statesmanship was to not let their differences
produce a debilitating polarization, one that could have wrecked
India. They combined loyalty and frankness. Even as partial a
biographer of Nehru as S. Gopal conceded that what prevented the
rupture was their 'mutual regard and Patel's stoic decency.'6

           The third sensibility so many leaders of the Constituent
Assembly carried was a creative form of self-doubt. They were all far
more self-conscious that they were taking decisions under conditions
of great uncertainty. Was it that easy to know what the consequences
of a particular position were going to be? They also understood their
mutual vulnerabilities. Nehru's answer to Patel's worry that Nehru was
losing confidence in him was that he was losing confidence in himself.
And anyone who has read the tortured last pages of The Discovery of
India will understand how much Nehru meant it. Much of the cheap
condescension of posterity heaped upon these figures would vanish if
we could show as much self-awareness and a sense of vulnerability as
our founding generation did. Many of them made mistakes of judgment.
But one has the confidence that they were more likely to acknowledge
their mistakes than most of those who comment upon them. They embodied
the central element of a constitutional morality: to treat each other
as citizens deserving equal regard, despite serious differences.

           The fourth sensibility which we have lost sight of is the
importance of form. We are all instinctive Marxists in the sense that
we think of institutions, forms and laws as so many contrivances to
consolidate power. But this was a generation with a deep sense that
forms and institutions are not merely instrumental for an immediate
goal; they are the enabling framework that allows a society the
possibilities of self-renewal. Forms also allow trust to be built;
they give a signal that power, even when it seeks to do good, is not
being exercised in a way that is arbitrary. This is exactly why the
members took the Assembly and its deliberations seriously.

           The fifth feature of their sensibility is a sense of
judgment. This is a very intangible political quality. Part of it is
the ability to deliberate in a way that takes on board all the
relevant considerations, and does not make politics hostage to a
single mission. Another is the ability to judge one's own power and
place in relation to others and the public at large. This gives a
better sense of when to compromise and when to press a point, when to
curb one's ego and when to project power.

           The Constitution was made possible by a constitutional
morality that was liberal at its core. Not liberal in the eviscerated
ideological sense, but in the deeper virtues from which it sprang: an
ability to combine individuality with mutual regard, intellectualism
with a democratic sensibility, conviction with a sense of fallibility,
deliberation with decision, ambition with a commitment to
institutions, and hope for a future with due regard for the past and
present.

           Footnotes:

           1. For easy access to the two Ambedkar speeches referred
to in this text, see the selection, The Constitution and the
Constituent Assembly Debates. Lok Sabha Secretariat, Delhi, 1990, pp.
107-131 and pp. 171-183.

           The quotation from Grote that Ambedkar uses can be found
in a reissue of George Grote, A History of Greece. Routledge, London,
2000, p. 93.

           2. Ambedkar, 'Speech Delivered on 25 November 1949' in The
Constitution and Constituent Assembly Debates, p. 174.

           3. Ibid., p. 174.

           4. Ibid., p. 181.

           5. Ibid., p. 181.

           6. S. Gopal, Nehru. Vol II. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, p. 308.


------------------------------------

----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ZESTCaste] Re: [PMARC] Caste based discrimination confirmed

Dear All

Please note that the following 4 have been added to www.dalit.org website

1. New Item NIESR Report
2. Blog on NIESR Report

3. Untouchability - Theories of (Article)
4. Japan - Untouchability in (Article)

On 20/12/2010 06:38, Dr.Prakash Louis wrote:
> Thanks Arun Kumarji for this information and for all the initiatives
> to carry on the struggle.
>
> regards
>
> prakash louis
>
> On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:16 AM, arun.kumar <arun.kumar@ntlworld.com
> <mailto:arun.kumar@ntlworld.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *FEDERATION OF AMBEDKARITE & BUDDHIST ORGANISATIONS - UK *
>
>
> *12, Featherstone Road Southall Middlesex UB2 5AA *
>
>
> *Mob: 07956 918053 /Email: fabo@ambedkar.org.uk
> <mailto:fabo@ambedkar.org.uk>/ *
>
> */NEWS RELEASE /*
>
> *Caste based discrimination confirmed by an independent research
> commissioned by Government Equalities Office *
>
> Equality Act 2010 doesn't cover Caste based discrimination (CBD)
> but contains a provision that, 'by order of a Minister, case may
> be treated as an aspect of race'. The Government commissioned
> research in 2010 through National Institute for Economic and
> Social Research (NIESR) to identify whether caste discrimination
> and harassment exists in relation to aspects covered by the
> Equality Act 2010. After extensive study and interviews, NIESR and
> Government Equalities Office have come up with a report /'Caste
> discrimination and harassment in Great Britain'/ published on 16
> December 2010 in which existence of CBD in the UK is officially
> confirmed. We welcome this eagerly awaited report.
>
> In its conclusion, the report says, "The study found evidence of
> caste discrimination and harassment in Britain in areas relevant
> to the Equality Act 2010, namely in work and the provision of
> services. It also found evidence of caste discrimination and
> harassment in other areas, namely education (pupil against pupil
> bullying), voluntary work (dismissal), worship and religion and
> public behaviour (harassment in public places). The consequences
> of these could be severe for the victims". That is what we had
> been campaigning for the last 35 years and finally our argument
> has been accepted. Federation of Ambedkarite & Buddhist
> Organisations UK (FABO, UK) highlighted this problem many times
> especially in its report *'/The Evil of Caste : The Caste System
> as the Largest Systemic Violation of Human Rights in Today's
> World'/*//by late Chanan Chahal released in the House of Commons
> on 21^st January, 2009. This report has been extensively quoted in
> the study published by Government Equalities Office.
>
> Now we appeal to the British government to accept the findings of
> NIESR's report and include CBD in the British law so that legal
> protection is provided to the victims of caste discriminatio n and
> they stop suffering silently.
>
> We are greatly thankful to many Members of Parliament, Lords,
> academics, NIESR team, various organisations especially Dalit
> Solidarity Network, UK, Anti Caste Discrimination Alliance, UK,
> Caste Watch UK, Voice of Dalit International, UK who gave their
> valuable support and time to campaign against CBD. The victims of
> caste deserve our deep appreciation for coming forward to give
> their testimony before the NIESR's team without which this
> achievement was impossible.
>
> */Arun Kumar /*
>
> *Joint Secretary *
>
> *Federation of Ambedkarite & Buddhist Organisations, UK *
>
> Buddha Vihara, 12, Featherstone Road, Southall, Middx. UB2 5AA
> E: fabo@ambedkar.org.uk <mailto:fabo@ambedkar.org.uk>
> Tel: 0044 7956 918053
>
> 18^th December, 2010
>
>
>
>
>
> * 101213 niesr report caste discrimination in great
> britain.doc <http://dgroups.org/?prhgva5z> - 768.5 KB,
> application/msword
>
>


------------------------------------

----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/

<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
ZESTCaste-digest@yahoogroups.com
ZESTCaste-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
ZESTCaste-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

[ZESTCaste] Dalits throng Krishnagiri Collectorate urging removal of encroachments

 

http://hindu.com/2010/12/21/stories/2010122150610500.htm

Tamil Nadu

Dalits throng Krishnagiri Collectorate urging removal of encroachments

R. Arivanantham

KRISHNAGIRI: Dalits from Adi Dravidar Colony, Avadanapatti village,
near Krishnagiri have accused three caste Hindu families of
encroaching upon a vacant land meant for public purpose in their
colony for the last eight years.

In this connection, over fifty people thronged the Collectorate and
submitted a petition to District Revenue Officer, C. Prakasam here on
Monday demanding that the encroachments be removed.

The Dalits alleged that caste-Hindus have erected two flag posts and
hoisted a PMK flag and Vanniyar Sangam flag, and fear that it will
flare up community clash.

Pressing their demand, the public were about to hand over their
Electoral Photo Identity Cards (EPIC) and Ration Cards to the district
administration.

In a petition, they alleged that three persons had encroached upon the
land meant for a school and built houses and shops.

Besides, the caste-Hindu families also blocked the flow of sewage in
the main outlet from the Dalit colony.

This resulted in stagnation of sewage for more than a year posing
serious health hazard to the residents.

Receiving the petition, Mr. Prakasam has assured the Dalits to take
action with the consultation of the District Collector V. Arun Roy.

__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
----
INFORMATION OVERLOAD?
Get all ZESTCaste mails sent out in a span of 24 hours in a single mail. Subscribe to the daily digest version by sending a blank mail to ZESTMedia-digest@yahoogroups.com, OR, if you have a Yahoo! Id, change your settings at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/join/

PARTICIPATE:-
On this list you can share caste news, discuss caste issues and network with like-minded anti-caste people from across India and the world. Just write to zestcaste@yahoogroups.com

TELL FRIENDS TO SIGN UP:-
If you got this mail as a forward, subscribe to ZESTCaste by sending a blank mail to ZESTCaste-subscribe@yahoogroups.com OR, if you have a Yahoo! ID, by visiting http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTCaste/join/

Also have a look at our sister list, ZESTMedia: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ZESTMedia/
MARKETPLACE

Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests.


Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now.


Find useful articles and helpful tips on living with Fibromyalgia. Visit the Fibromyalgia Zone today!

.

__,_._,___

Blog Archive