Caste annihilation before caste equalization is dangerous
Do we really want caste annihilation before caste equalization?
I find a Iot of people obsessed with “caste annihilation”, forgetting that it is the underlying caste “inequality” that is heinous, not so much the caste labels themselves. If a blacksmith is called a blacksmith, there is nothing wrong with it. I can see two problems with labeling a blacksmith as a blacksmith:
(1) A blacksmith’s children are forced to be blacksmiths.
(2) Blacksmiths are given a low social standing and commensurately low pay.
WHY CASTE LABELS ARE NEEDED
The first of the above mentioned two- problems of the age-old caste system has by and large been destroyed, as it does not have legal backing anymore. Out of economic necessity, and due to lack of education, some may continue to do their traditional ancestral jobs.
However, no one is legally forced to his or her ancestral job. A couple of Mochis may have been beaten up for refusing to move animal carcasses. But that too is more of an exception than a rule.
It is the second problem that is the most deleterious aspect of the caste system. However, I find most Dalits focusing their attention towards ameliorating the first problem mentioned above and paying scant attention to redressing the second one which is a more grievous problem. The truth is that if the second problem is taken care of, the first problem might not even be regarded as a problem.
Speaking, in our enthusiasm to rectify the first problem, if most of us go ahead and get rid of our caste- labels, it would become difficult to take care of the second problem.
One of the main instruments of bringing about statistical equality of all groups is affirmative action. Affirmative action cannot be implemented in the absence of caste labels.
Another instrument is needed to – overcome the inherent disadvantage that minority groups face under the plurality system of election, which is also known as first-past-the-post (FPTP). In fact, without any reservation or other means of guaranteeing Dalit representation, under FPTP, hardly any Dalit would be elected to legislative bodies. This is because most of the 25% Dalits are spread around the country evenly so that the number of Dalits is no more than a maximum of 30- 35% in any of the constituencies, and hardly any of them would expect to get elected primarily with Dalit support.
PROPORTIONAL SHARE
That is why Dr. Ambedkar pressed for some means of achieving Proportional Representation (PR).
Unfortunately, there were only two options for PR that were in contention at the Round Table Conference of 1930’s in London:
(1) Separate Electorate System (SES), proposed by Dr. Ambedkar.
(2) The second method of achieving PR was proposed by M.K. Gandhi. It has come to be known as first-past-the-post with “Joint Electorates from Reserved Constituencies” (FPTP-JERC).
Dr. Ambedkar was forced to the ignoble fast-unto-death undertaken by Gandhi, resulting in the infamous Poona Pact. FPTP- JERC gives illusory representation to Dalits, in fact it gives us a total misrepresentation. accept this insidious method of election by
It seems that aside from these two methods of achieving PR, the only other method that Dr. Ambedkar was aware of was the single Transferable Voting (STV) system.
GANDHI SUPPORTED HINDUS
Dr. Ambedkar, rightly, did not consider STV to be suitable to the illiterate masses of India. I think Dr. Ambedkar did not know about list- PR (used extensively all-over Western Europe, except in the UK and France). Had he known about it, I think he would have pressed for it and Gandhi, and his Hindu supporters would have found it difficult to oppose the same.
One may feel that list-PR or any method other than SES and FPTP- JERC would not guarantee a numerical quota of seats to Dalits. In the absence of this kind of guarantee, the upper caste may prevent Dalits from voting to reduce their representation. First of all, it is better to have a reduced but genuine representation than a full quota of fake representation. Secondly, a guaranteed quota for Dalits can very easily be incorporated within the list- PR system. Had Dr. Ambedkar known about the list-PR with guaranteed Quota of seats for Dalits. (list-PR-QD), he would have raised hell and forced Gandhi and other Hindus to accept the same. (List-PR, l151-R-QD, etc. would be described separately.)
WHY CASTES ARE NEEDED
Both of the above two instruments (of bringing about equality of castes), viz., affirmative action and list-PR-QD, require continued use of caste labels. Mind you, continued use of the identifiers Dalit or, SC/ ST or, Harijan or whatever (for reservation benefits), is tantamount to continuing the caste system; except that we want the oppression of the lower castes to be replaced by beneficial affirmative action quotas for the underprivileged.
One cannot demand continuation of the caste-based quota system (or reservation for Dalits) and at the same time seek caste- annihilation. Those who want continued use of the label Dalit, but not the sub-castes within Dalits, are nothing but hypocrites.
Caste labels like untouchables, Chamar, Dusadh, Dhobi, Mala, Madiga, etc. once utilized for subjugation, and creating a hierarchy, are needed to extricate us from subjugation and level off the hierarchy. Mere removal of the labels will not equalize them. In the absence of equalization, the labels will continue to be associated with the unequal groups (surreptitiously or otherwise).
HARM OF CASTE ANNIHILATION
So, caste-annihilation should not be our primary goal. Our primary goal has to be “equalization of castes”.
Caste-annihilation will be a fall-out of equalization. In fact, any effort to annihilate caste before equalization has been achieved would hamper our progress towards equalization, which in turn, would cause caste to linger on longer.
SES has several flaws associated with it:
1.Each of the two groups, Dalits and non-Dalits would have elected their representatives via the flawed FPTP, which would have discriminated against weaker subgroups within the Dalit and non-Dalit groups.
2.Other weaker segments like Muslims and linguistic minorities would have continued to suffer from non-representation. Usually, it is relatively easier to break up weaker segments of society into small political and social entities. As such, even the OBC could have been broken up into smaller groups and then made to suffer under- representation.
3.Under the list-PR system, since all groups irrespective of their size get proportional representation, break-up of a group into smaller sub-groups would not benefit other groups, as the sum of the sub-groups would be equal to the original group. The sub-groups can continue to cooperate on issues common to them. The subgroups are likely to be less inimical to each other, as their breakup does not put them at a disadvantage.
For the above reasons SES has not been adopted in any part of the world. We need to look around the world and learn from others how they have solved their problems with regard to minorities and other problems. We don’t need to invent the wheel and make all the mistakes others have made in the process. We should be able to see how others have made wheels and try to make super-wheels.
It is sad to see Dalits still yearning for SES, without trying to learn about list-PR, which is being used by more than two-thirds of democracies.
