IJDTSA Vol.2, Issue 1, No.1 pp.1 to 23, June, 2014
Social Justice and Social Development of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in Maharashtra
Abstract
This paper attempts to provide operational definition of social justice by presenting debate on justice in general and social justice in Indian context in particular. It highlights various models of ‘just society’ or ‘social order’ envisaged by our founding fathers and subsequent attempts in post-independent India by the state to realize the goals of democratic socialist India and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity enshrined in the preamble of India’s constitution. The paper further presents the unique problems faced by SC/STs in India such as untouchability in case of SCs and isolation in case of STs. It highlights the socio-economic exclusion and marginalization they face in the development process by presenting empirical data and also unravelling the growing gap between legal and social justice. Finally, it proposes constitutive ingredients or elements of Human Development Index for SC/STs in Maharashtra.
Dr.Shaileshkumar Darokar is Associate Professor, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Tata Institute of Social Sciences
Introduction
In the context of the renewed upsurge amongst the worst victims of caste in recent years, the nature, implication and importance of caste and other systems that excludes are being reviewed at all levels. In this context, dominant development discourse that held sway since India’s independence are being contested leading to either minor alterations, processual reformulations or even radical restructuring. Pertaining to such politico historical articulations, demanding more egalitarian socio economic spaces, the question of justice occupies definitive categorical space.
With a vision to maximise justice in the process of development, it has become essential to critically comprehend political economic road blocks and social impediments towards achieving the same. In this struggle to understand and solve the enormous challenge posed by the question of justice to current development paradigms, it is proposed that an index that incorporate these elements be formulated, seeking to uncover both the concomitant social realities of the present and the imperatives of inclusion in the future.
As we progress in time as a nation and within such a milieu, the formulation of a human development index that measures excluded communities especially Dalit and Adivasis has become indispensable. However, in such a contested socio economic and political space, the conceptualisation of the same from people’s day to day lived experience becomes paramount. Such a theoretical postulate then requires that a critical engagement first be made with the notion of ‘social’ within the framework of justice, popularly articulated in the forms of social justice.
Rationale for Development Indices for SC/STs
Any exercise to identify and construct the developmental indices of the Dalits and the Adivasis have to confront a perennial problem of conceptualization of their situation at the first place and second to translate it into identifiable, objective and an quantifiable policy initiative. The problem which the policy makers and the academia must face are located within the specific experiential circumstances in which these communities are existing and more or less defy the conventional logic of objective quantifiability and always pose a problematique to the existing policy structures. Therefore, while dealing with these communities than any other, there is at a policy making level an absolute urgency to understand the conceptual/theoretical underpinnings that explores the day to day life conditions of the Dalits or the Adivasis, so that policy making is more enriched with a meaningful formulation than a haphazard, ill informed and methodologically misplaced bureaucratic application. On the other hand at the academic scholarship level a metaphysical or a theoretical workout is also not sufficient and it should be placed such a way that a meaningful application of it can be worked out or there remains a possibility of the application of those metaphysical and theoretical categories. Despite these, the experiential lives of the Dalits and the Adivasis will always remain beyond the conceptualization of a policy, which in a way is a perennial challenge both for the academia and the policy makers to understand and redress the Dalit/Adivasi situation.
It is interesting to note though not enough have been spelled out on this matter by the commentators- that the problems of the Dalits have been located within the episteme of justice. The debate ranges from the overall structural arrangement of the society’s political and economic life- which sees the origination of the problem in the structural arrangement of the society and hence its eventual emancipation coinciding with the desired changes in these structural arrangements. To some the debate does not stop only at the grand schema of structural arrangement, but also focuses and gives prominence to the peculiar and the particular aspect of justice which needs to be addressed ‘there’ taking into a context the lives and experiences of these communities. As a result, apart from the larger discourse of justice, the discourse of ‘social justice’ have thus, been introduced to address those theoretically particular concerns. There is thus, a dialectical relationship between that of the universal argument of justice and the particular argument. The issues of universal just arrangements cannot be satisfied without the aspect of social justice, nor can the social justice aspect come into prominence and enjoy the visibility and voice without the foregrounding of the universal justice principle.
However, the debate over justice and most particularly the universal have focused upon the distributive aspect of justice and have made it its core operative part, whereas the social justice aspect and argument in India moves beyond the argument of just distributive justice. The development as a core methodology to access the status of the human society, therefore, embarks upon such aspect of distributive justice, and particularly dependant upon only those formulations that are distributable, and hence limited in scope as far as the issues of Dalits and the Adivasis are concerned as they defy all parameters of distribution methodology. It won’t be surprising that despite the large arrays of policies of the Government of India relating to the Dalits and the Adivasis, which cannot be termed as less than impressive, the conditions of these communities show disturbing pictures of failed attempts, and raises an ever larger question of how to tackle the situation. The policy makers, though understand the distributive factors of the universal justice arguments and incorporate it in the larger framework, they are hardly concerned, indifferent, callous, or clueless as to the gamut of theoretical and policy implied arguments the social justice debates have generated in India, and most prominently from those who have suffered from it. The problem with the policy makers in India is that they have either not been intellectually genuine or have adopted the policy of cognitive blackout towards Dalits/Adivasis by not taking into cognizance the voices concerns of these categories. In fact, they could have raised the concerns and provide it the legitimacy within the policy circles, which was the urgent necessity to address the problems of these communities.
Concept of Social Justice
There is no single universally accepted definition of social justice. Social justice, in fact, forms the core of the broad concept of justice. However, there appears a broad consensus over the constituting principles of social justice. It chiefly concerned about the construction of just society, equal distribution of goods or resource to all sections of society, equality of opportunity so on and so forth. This is evident from the ways various thinkers and philosophers conceived the notion of justice. Plato conceptualizes justice as ‘deserved treatment’ i.e., giving every individual his/her due. Robert Nozick conceives it as ‘historical entitlement’ as an important element of distributive justice where society is aware of its wrongs and corrects them through compensation. John Rawls conceptualizes justice as fairness. For Frankena justice is notion of allotment of something to person, in other words distributive justice that involves comparative allotment. For David Miller, it is the distributive character of justice that is important. He further gives three different and conflicting meanings and interpretations of justice as three principles of justice i.e., to each according to his rights, to each according to his deserts, and to each according to his needs. Although, it is difficult to evolve universal definition of social justice, Frankena, therefore, emphasizes need to ensure social justice practically. He argues that the principle of equality may prima facie be the requirement of justice but there can be departure from complete equality on the ground of differences in ability, merit, desert and need. Frankena further emphasizes that the judgment of social institutions as just or unjust presupposes that it transcends human legislation and is binding on all societies (Jogdand et al 2008).
Important Theories of Justice
The construction of a just social order or a society that is free of exploitation, oppression and inequalities – social, economic and political has been the primary goal of modern societies. The French Revolution has greatly contributed the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity as basic tenets constituting of just social order or society. Social science literature offers numerous theoretical positions or perspectives on social justice and equality (Rawls 1971, Dworkin 1977, Sandel 1982, Sen 2009). However, it is observed that the prominent theoretical approaches to social justice such as utilitarian and communitarian have their own limitations especially in terms of socio-economic and political contexts, and structural realities in different societies. Therefore, the conception of social justice, distributive justice and equality appeared to be contested one in social sciences. We would attempt to review a few of them in order to evolve operational definition of social justice to assess social development impact on SCs and STs in India in general and Maharashtra in particular.
The most debated of all is A Theory of Justice (1971) by Rawls. He emphasises on the following:
Rawls’ theory is considered as contractualist theory of justice as it applies to institutions and practices. It is based on the notions of fairness and reciprocity. Rawls believed that this theory of justice is an improvement over utilitarian account of justice (Kumar 2008:105-6). In utilitarian perspective, justice is driven by the happiness of the greatest numbers. It overlooks individual gain or losses and instead looks at overall attainment of justice only. Rawls’ conception treats society distributively, taking into account the autonomy and right to satisfaction of each of its members (Ibid). The communitarian thinkers, on the other hand, are not very different. They too argue for only a social conception of justice assuming that every individual interest is taken care of by the general conception of justice. They are more concerned about the groups, communities and culture (Upendra 2008:32-33).
Rawls and Dworkin are keen to address social inequality through distribution of goods and resources. It is argued that a programme of distribution ensures fair possessions to all sections of society with special attention to those marginalized and deprived of resources on the basis of caste or race. However, distributive measures alone can hardly restore dignity and freedom to such marginalized groups (Mahadevan 2008:82). Thinkers such as Habermas remarks, especially in such context that, “By reducing justice to distributive justice, it misses the freedom-guaranteeing meaning of legitimate rights… The idea of just society is connected with the promise of emancipation and human dignity”. Thus, justice is not merely about distribution of goods, but is about guaranteeing equal rights and dignity to all persons under fair, non-exploitative circumstances (Mahadevan 2008: 82-3).
Western thought which had been frequently referred including those of Rawls, Nozick, Dworkin etc., deals with the universal principle of justice and rights and foreground their ideas fundamentally on the nature of the structure that will promote the idea of justice. Divergent though they are yet are useful for the construction and our own formulations. Yet, these debates, generated within the western theories particularly those of the Rawlsian and the Dworkian tradition are restricted within the distributive paradigm, distribution of mainly resources, income, deserts, rights, entitlements, etc., and that too within the contexts of their societies. Whereas, for Nozick, the issue of entitlement is the core of justice and that nay arrangement that takes away a rightful entitlement in favour of distribution only promotes injustice. Thus, both of these major theoretical position, reflect a restricted view of justice, operative within the context of those materially advanced societies in which the basic need have been fulfilled, and the major concern for justice is just distribution or on the other hand entitlement. They, do not even to an extent address the concerns of underdeveloped, ethnically, and socially varied societies, and the problems they throw in addressing their issues.
Amartya Sen in his The Idea of Justice (2009) argues for what is described as the ‘capabilities’ conception of justice. Sen emphasizes for alternative approaches to existing theories of justice and urges for a new way of looking at justice. ‘Capabilities’ is mainly the critique of Rawls’ stress on primary goods. Sen insists that there is no such thing as “perfect” justice; it is relative to a given situation. The quest for “ideal” justice is meaningless; instead the stress should be on removing the more manifest forms of injustice. For Sen, justice is ultimately connected with the way people’s lives go, and not merely with the nature of institutions surrounding them. In other words institutions must be seen as instruments for promoting justice rather than manifestations of justice.
Indian Society and the Vision of Just Social Order
As we all know social order or system in India is characterized by social stratification of high levels of graded inequalities. In fact, the graded inequalities are operative at both the levels of philosophical justification and actual operation (Ram 2002:2). “The Hindu social order, particularly with its unique feature of caste system and untouchability is a system of social, economic and religious governance” (Thorat 2002). Many of our builders of modern India including M. K. Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, B. R. Ambedkar, Peiyar, Jayprakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia and many others had envisioned a just social order in India. They had envisaged a democratic socialist India free of social inequalities and economic disparities. However, the nationalist discourse on caste and freedom of certain sections from caste-based disabilities and their inclusion in mainstream society is represented by three distinct perspectives, namely nationalist perspective led by Gandhi, the socialist-communists led by Socialists and Marxists and Dalit-Bahujan perspective led by Ambedkar. It is, therefore, essential to critically review these perspectives in order to understand their positions on social justice and development of Scheduled Castes in India.
As already mentioned, in the nineteenth century many social reformers, leaders and intellectuals have made a significant contribution to evolve just society in India. The Indian National Congress in general and Gandhi in particular recognized, though lately, the need for eradication of untouchability and improvement of conditions of the untouchables or Harijans. But Gandhi pinned down his deep faith to the sanctity of Hinduism and did not find anything wrong in it. Untouchability for him was undesirable appendage, therefore, not a threat to Hinduism. In his opinion, if untouchables be reformed on the model of the Brahmanical Hinduism, the practice of untouchability would automatically disappear and Hinduism would remain intact (Parvathamma 1989:132-33). In fact, Gandhi by all means wanted to prove that “Hinduism as tradition has the capacity to be introspective and self-corrective especially towards such deformities as untouchability and to build bridges across and establish the shared space with similar other traditions such as Islam” (Rodrigues 1994:153). Nevertheless, as a leader working for a national goal, Gandhi argued for removing injustices faced by ‘untouchables’ because he felt the need to weave the divergent interests in India into a unified opposition to the British: he argued for pursuing this course of reform without challenging the social fabric of Indian society (Verma 1999).
Further, Gandhi’s social reformism and proposed development path were to combine the village-oriented decentralized development and a reformed Hindu spirituality. “His vision of “Ram Raj’ made him not simply a Hindu but also an indirect spokesman for upper caste interest” (Omvedt 1994:340). According to Kothari, “There was something wrong with Gandhi’s whole model of restructuring India of the future. Mere stress on reviving village economy and decentralization of the state apparatus was not enough. He failed to give attention to the social power structure that pervaded it all” (Kothari 1997:451). Similarly, Jawaharlal Nehru, one time disciple of Gandhi and a supposed architect of modern India had envisioned, after Independence, for a “socialist pattern of society” through the planned development. He chose mixed economy promoting industrialization and rural development through the Five Year Plans, but his socialism, without much concern for the restructuring of the traditional domination and exploitation, could not produce the desired result. In fact, Nehru’s model of Indian society had its specific Hindu character from the beginning.
Lohia’s Socialism
Ram Manohar Lohia, another disciple of Gandhi, radically differed from both Gandhi and Nehru. During the 1950s he came with his brand of socialism which was an ideological break with both Gandhian reformism and the Marxists’ mechanical focus on ‘class’ (Omvedt 1994:272). Against Gandhi’s advice to the untouchables to launch active resistance against caste oppression and to solve their problem within the framework of Varna divisions, Lohia advocated for their militant struggles for the total abolition of the caste system in alliance with liberal elements from the upper castes ‘Shudras, Muslims, Adivasis and Women’ (Roy 1979:304). He also formulated programmes for destroying caste through organizing “studies, debates, seminars and all other types of meetings and discussions… to purify religion and its practices —- by believing in and practicing the intermarriage… (and) securing of sixty per cent of the leadership posts in government, political parties, business and armed services by law or by convention to the backward casts… (Roy1979:304). It is, however, said that Lohia’s programme was basically a moderate one as it did not challenge the class rule of minority and its monopoly over the productive resources in the country. His approach was said to be based on the faith that “Hinduism could be purged of caste hierarchy and Brahmanism. In remaining within this framework, without a sharp critique of the limits of religious reform and in context of focusing on reservations as a general anti-caste programme,… The result was a general preservation of the caste equation….transformed into interest groups and vote banks (Omvedt 1994:276).
Communists in India: Fighting Caste Through Agrarian Revolution
Besides the nationalist and the socialist articulation of the Indian National Congress for a just society to evolve in India, the undivided Communist Party of India (CPI) founded in 1920 also envisioned to reconstruct the existing Indian society with the help of the Marxist ideology. Its leaders talked of socialism through the revolution or revolutionary means to form an egalitarian society. Towards this end, they had series of programmes to follow. Some of these are listed below:
(For more detail, see Jacob (ed.), CPI Document – 1942 – 47, pp.224-26; also see, Communist Party and problems of National Reconstruction, 1955).
In pursuing its programmes, the CPI claimed to link its struggle against untouchability and caste system with agrarian revolution. It also claimed to fight for the complete abolition of slavery, achieving absolute equality of the working pariahs (Dalits) and all the toilers in the country. It waged its struggle for guaranteeing the minimum economic living conditions, land and employment towards eliminating domination of the old-feudal and semi-feudal landlords as well as of the new rich (Ranadive1979). Further, the common consciousness among the toiling masses was generated through its economic struggle directed towards intervention against the caste oppression. Its far reaching consequences were claimed to be linked with the necessity of changing the contemporary social order including land relations by putting socio-economic sole of the Hindu religion and religion in general before the working class. In brief, the struggle was said to be heading towards eliminating caste system and ending domination of the monopolies and the imperialist exploitation. This was possible through the democratic class struggle. The caste barriers were to be broken in the course of the struggle aided by the anti-caste propaganda and education of the peasantry (Ranadive 1979).
Ambedkar’s Critique of the Existing Perspective of his Time on Just Social Order
This emerging alternative society was criticized by Ambedkar by saying that Gandhi believed in caste and defended it with the vigour of the orthodox (Ambedkar 1979:92). Ambedkar said that freedom of India from British Imperialism was the only aim of the Congress (Ambedkar 1990:169). Gandhi did not want the untouchables to organize and be strong for he feared that they might thereby become independent of the Hindus and weaken the ranks of Hindu (Ambedkar 1990:266). Similarly, in Ambedkar’s opinion an alternative model of the Indian society which the Indian communists wanted to emerge was not different from that of the Indian National Congress. According to Omvedt, the upper caste origins of the Indian communists (a ‘bunch of Brahman boy’, in the words of Ambedkar) made them unwilling to look at the forms of exploitation which questioned their upper caste interests (Omvedt 1994:183). Ambedkar on his own said, “We consider the communist goal of immediate revolution to be unrealistic, not necessarily unjustified, we support their social and economic objective, but not their political philosophy, they have done nothing to educate the common people in their way of thinking. We think the path of revolutionary communism to be counter-productive. That cannot be said of the movement for establishing the rights of untouchables. We do not favour violence as a means or strategy in our movement” (quoted in Gore 1993:119). Thus, according to Omvedt, “the communist movement in India originated as Brahmin dominated (in caste terms), and it remained Brahman dominated; therefore, the process of social transformation could not take place. As a result, when Ambedkar reacted to Marxism, he reacted to it only as closed system which was at crucial point not simply indifferent but in opposition to struggle of the Dalits” (Omvedt 1994:184-85). Thus, the ideological trends and their exponents as well as other forces were engage in evolving the alternate models of society during the period mentioned above. These models were not different in any way from the contemporary model of the society in India. In fact, they helped maintain the same social order. This made Ambedkar to envision a society or new social order, which we shall discuss in following section.
Dalit-Bahujan vision of social justice and development
For Dalit-Bahujan perspective led by Ambedkar, self-respect, as argued by Rodrigues was the central concern especially, in the context of caste-based society where the greatest injury was done to the self-respect of vast masses particularly to those lower down the hierarchy. Pursuit of self-respect necessarily required transformation of beliefs and practices which have hitherto treated masses with contempt and humiliation. Ambedkar rightly believed and insisted on self-effort, destruction of institutions and values that heaped abuse on backward classes in general, and untouchable in particular, demanding that social life be based on principles conducive to the appreciation of self-respect (Rodrigues 2006:48).
It is difficult to conceptualize the dispensation of social justice to the most marginalised communities in Indian society without acknowledging the most significant role played by Ambedkar (Kumar 2008:115). Ambedkar has played different roles at different point in time of India’s history. He has been considered a great visionary and therefore long back had envisioned a social order or a society based on equality, fraternity, compassion and individual freedom. This was an outcome of experiential reality as he and his brethren have found total absence of these values in Hinduism. In other words, consequently in the new social order envisioned by him there had to be freedom of mind and thought, social equality, and a sense of fellowship with other human beings or fraternity which were also the ultimate goal of his movement (Gore 1993:208). Hailing from a socially stigmatized community (Mahar), Ambedkar had to face all sorts of socio-religious and caste discriminations. Yet, he strived throughout his life to secure the rights of equality, fraternity, social justice and human dignity for the depressed and poor masses, including the untouchables or Scheduled Castes or the present day Dalits. In the process, he also inspired millions of Dalits to restore for themselves a respectful place and identity in the society. He also inspired them “to fight for the establishment of just society in India and enjoy a dignified status in that” (Ram 1995:49).
A scholar and intellectual Ambedkar tried to decode the Hindu social order from his own perspective and highlighted its exploitative elements. According to him, the Hindu social order is based on classes – castes and sub castes and not on the individual’s worth (Ambedkar 1987:99). In this order, the status and function of classes are pre-determined and fixed. It has sustained for long for three reasons: the use of religious sanctions making the order divinely ordained and; hence, not open to abrogation, amendment or even criticism; the Brahmans have been made a superman and, therefore, worthy of worship by the rest. The possibility of rebellion is completely absent in it by denying access of knowledge in general and of the sacred knowledge in particular to the rest (Ambedakr 1987: 124-7).
Eliciting Ambedkar’s conception of Justice, Guru argues that in Ambedkar’s view the system of graded inequality was not notional but legal and penal as a result the concept of justice in ancient society contained no notion of equal treatment to all men. In other words, the function of justice in such a society was to preserve the existing hierarchy, serve to validate social stratification and perpetuate casteism (Guru 2002:41). Guru further states that untouchables during this period sought equality only in relation to God (in the spiritual realm) and failed to attack social inequality that subverted their material life. Ambedkar, as argued by Guru, rejected this metaphysical concept of justice. Ambedkar, according to him, believed that the Touchables lack social conscience. They are also insensitive to the justice of Untouchables due to the heavy influence of Hindu Dharma. The discriminatory nature of Hindu law made Ambedkar to welcome the legal intervention by the British. He found it giving effect to the concept of equality before law and having potential to declare untouchability invalid. However, Ambedkar, as Guru argues , maintained the view that legal justice at the formal or at theoretical level would be ineffective at the practical level. For Ambedkar, the effectiveness of the principle of equal justice necessarily depends on the nature and character of the civil services who administer the said principle. Ambedkar opines that the personnel in British government’s civil services are drawn from those classes who believed in the old established order of the Hindus in which the principles of equality had no place (Ibid.).
Later Ambedkar insisted for representation (political reservations) for untouchables in proportion to their population which he believed would enable untouchables to secure social justice on more equitable and honourable terms. Thus, we see, as pointed out by Guru, the shift in Ambedkar’s position. He further highlights that Ambedkar negated the legal concept of justice on the ground that its implementation is in the hands of upper castes. However, Ambedkar affirmed this kind of justice if only implementation of legal justice is vested in the hands of untouchables. According to Guru, Ambedkar’s concept of justice appears to be embedded within the liberal framework and his idea of social justice is tantamount to the concept of justice propounded by John Rawls. Rawls’ theory of distributive justice has ‘element of the difference’ principle; while in Ambedkar’s it is the principle of special treatment. According to Guru, both these principles of justice require a distribution of resources that will most effectively satisfy the needs of the worst off. Distributive justice, in Ambedkar’s case, involves prestige and honour along with principle of equality, highlights Guru (Guru 2002:45-47).
Finally, Guru emphasises that Ambedkar’s concept of justice is not an abstract or a static one. On the contrary, it is concrete and dynamic which moves in a direction away from the limits inherent in the liberal notion of social justice. According to him, Ambedkar was painfully aware that despite adequate representation, untouchables would not be able to meet out justice to their people as they will be operating under terrible pressures and conditions of socio-economic insecurity dictated by dominant forces in this country. Therefore, Ambedkar emphasized social and economic justice as the pre-condition for redeeming political justice (Ibid).
On the other hand, Verma argues that Ambedkar’s theory of distributive justice has three components, (a) equality of opportunity for all citizens, (b) critique of Hindu society based on an autonomous ideology, and (c) establishment of casteless by removing oppression and domination. She highlights that while Ambedkar found prescriptive uses of the concept of equality in moral and political arrangements as quite useful; however, he was aware of the treatment of inequality on the basis of caste and tradition. Ambedkar, therefore, insisted on the right to take into account the special claims of certain communities which had for centuries been excluded from position of equality and respect (Verma 1999).
Being well aware of all pervasive inequalities in Indian social structure, Ambedkar departed fundamentally from the individualist premise of the equality principle and proposed two strategies: (1) A theory of rights as legal entitlements casting obligations on the members of the society. The untouchables had a set of rights and the state a duty to eradicate discriminatory practices. Norms of non-discrimination apply not only to government but also to civil society – corporations, schools, places of worship, etc. The crucial point that Verma makes here is that Ambedkar stresses the relational aspect of rights and these rights are put forward as important elements or vital ingredients in a fully realized human life. The core argument, therefore, is that members of the group suffer because they are neither accorded the same respect nor afforded the same opportunities as other persons or groups. They are prevented from realising their capacities, in other words, they are not treated with full respect and dignity. (2) The basic human needs of the Dalits were not only material (wealth, occupational mobility) but non-material; all have the right to be human and the right to live with dignity and self-respect. Verma argues that although, Ambedkar stressed the need for reservation in representative institutions, this was only to acquire equality in other goods. According to Verma Ambedkar accepted the premise of equality but advocated group-based politics to achieve that goal. The first is constitutive and the second derivative. Ambedkar pleaded the case of priority of community claims over individual rights on the grounds of (a) deeply entrenched structural forms of oppression against the Dalits and to counter this he raised the possibilities of political participation of Dalits through reservations which would counter the dominant upper caste perspective in legislature and ensure laws removing untouchability, removing ban of use of public street, temples, schools etc. and, (b) The reparation against historic systematic and cumulative injustice and deprivation suffered by lower caste in the past (Ibid).
Verma argues that Ambedkar was aware of the conceptual incoherence these justifications give rise to when applied to policy issues. She, therefore, argued that this is derivative political position and Ambedkar was to warn of the possibility of that these special claims might eat the general rule of equality altogether. Ambedkar, therefore, argued that the constitution should not only declare that we shall have specific rights that every community will have, but the constitution should provide ways and means by which we shall be protected in the exercise of these rights (Ibid).
Epistemic Foregrounding of Social Justice and Development of Dalits and Adivasis
The developmental discourse of the Dalits and the Tribes within the ambit of the “Caste” framework as the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes needs an epistemic foregrounding in the framework of ‘untouchability’ and ‘Adivasi’. The reason being that caste as a category, though is the most visible and identifiable category does not in itself explain the condition of the untouchable or the Adivasi, and hence can be reproduced without the circumstantial and the lived experiences of both the communities.
The epistemic understanding of untouchability need to be fore-grounded on the axis which explains the praxis of the conditions material and ideological which remains the source and the eventual produce of the practice of untouchability. The amelioration of untouchability is therefore contingent upon the removal of those conditions material and ideological that gives rise to the birth of the practice of untouchability.
The developmental understanding with its focus upon the various capacity building measures, only addresses the economic aspect of the outcome of the economic policies garbed under the nomenclature of social justice. The argument is misplaced by terming these policies also as steps towards the removal of untouchability and the eventual performance and fulfilment of social justice. One needs to understand that the policies of development are not the policies of the removal of untouchability but only address the developmental concerns that of opportunity and access devoid of the removal of those structures that perpetuate the lack of it and which block it.
The framing of the indices focusing upon the Dalits and the Adivasis, therefore, cannot afford just to be at the developmental level but their focus must be to ameliorate those conditions which give rise to untouchability. The indicators thus, must move out of the conventional developmental framework to cater to these needs of these special communities.
The possibilities of distributive justice thus can be placed within these theoretical understanding of the extent and reach of the distributive process and its methodology- both of the liberal tradition of the west as well as the different perspectives that have emerged within India. We, therefore, have three referral points which generally have been the focus area of the government since independence dealing with the Dalits and the Adivasis. These are:
a. Developmental b. Protective and c. Preferential.
Developmental, Protective and Preferential status of SCs and STs in Post-Independent India
After independence of India, the preamble of the Indian Constitution solemnly resolved to provide all its citizens: justice – social, economic and political; liberty of thought, expressions, belief, faith and worship; equality of opportunity and status; and to promote among them all fraternity assuring the dignity of individual and unity. The Constitution of India further states that “The state shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, place and birth or any form”. In the directive principles it adds that, “The state shall promote with special care the educational and economic interest of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation” (Thorat 2002).
Following the constitutional guidelines, numerous measures have been initiated by the government for the protection of these (SC/ST) social groups. The nature of the measures is both protective and developmental. Originally, the social welfare programmes of the government were oriented mostly towards providing promotive, protective and curative services. However, of late, the emphasis is more on preventive, developmental and rehabilitative services and the successive Five Year Plans have regarded the progress of these programmes as a major objective of national social policy (Chahande 2001: 10). Government has duly recognized deprivation and discrimination of SCs and STs and developed specific anti-discriminatory programmes from time to time for their development. The approach and strategy of the government in this regards are influenced by two main considerations, namely (a) to overcome the multiple deprivations of the SC/STs inherited from exclusion in the past, and to bring them par with others, and (b) to provide protection against exclusion and discrimination in the present by encouraging their effective participation in socio-economic and political processes in the country (Thorat 2009: 35).
In the ‘protective or preventive sphere’, untouchability was legally abolished and was forbidden in practice in any form by the Anti-Untouchability Act of 1955. After nearly two decades, in 1976, the 1955 Act was reviewed in order to make it more stringent and effective, and thus the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 (PCR Act) was enacted. However, in 1989, the government enacted yet another Act, namely the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in order to prevent atrocities against members of the SC/ST (Thorat 2002). In the economic, educational and political spheres some of the provisions have been made through reservation and representation to improve their access and participation. The provision of political reservation in various bodies, reservation in government services, admission to educational institutions and several other areas are the promotional measures (Ibid).
In fact, the PCR Act prohibits and provides penalties for enforcement of any religious disability in any religious place like a temple; social disability in public place like shop/restaurants, hospitals, etc.; refusal to sell goods or render services because of considerations of untouchability, and demand of compulsory labour relating to untouchability; like scavenging, sweeping, removal of carcasses, flaying animals, etc. It contains provisions for all offenses to be cognizable, for minimum punishment and summary trials. SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act 1989 is more stringent than the PCR Act. It specifies the atrocities which are liable for penalties under the Act. These include, forcing the eating of noxious substances, dumping waste matter on land, denudation, wrongful occupation of land, dispossession, bonded labour, intimidation during voting, mischievous litigation, false information, public humiliation, outrage of modesty, sexual exploitation, fouling of water sources, obstruction of entry to a public resort, eviction from habitation, mischief with explosives, destruction of building, and suppression of evidences. These offences carry heavier penalties than similar offences under IPC (Mander 2002:158).
The SC/STs constitute about 81per cent of the bonded labourers in the country. The government has programmes for their release/liberation and rehabilitation. There are special programmes for the education, health and housing needs of some occupational groups, such as sweepers, mining workers and bidi workers.
Educational Programmes of Government
Educational development constitutes the major programme of the government. The main educational problems of SC/STs include low literacy rate, high drop-out at school and higher level (especially of girls), poor quality of education and discrimination and exclusion during admissions into educational institutions. Some of the measures in educational programmes include (i) to improve educational infrastructure, particularly in the areas predominantly by the SC/STs, (ii) admission into educational institutions through reservation of seats and other measures, (iii) financial support at various levels of education, including national and international scholarships/fellowships, (iv) remedial coaching to improve the quality of education and capabilities, (v) special hostels for girls and boys, (vi) other schemes such as providing uniforms, book bank, attendance allowance. In all the schemes special focus is on girls’ education (Thorat 2009).
Schemes for Civic Amenities
Government has taken proper care to improve access of SCs to civic amenities like drinking water, housing, sanitation, electricity, road and public distribution of food. The physical segregation and isolation of Dalit and Adivasi settlements are often the causes of their being deprived of these amenities (Ibid). Each state is eligible to get special assistance under special central assistance (special component plan for the SC). In Maharashtra it is Dalit Vasti Sudhar Yojana (Dalit Locality Improvement Scheme) which was launched in 1974 to provide infrastructural facilities to Dalits (Chahande 2001:19).
Economic Development
For the economic development of SCs there are three Finance Corporations, namely Mahatma Phule Development Corporation, Leather Industries Development Corporation and Annabhau Sathe Development Corporation. Their main schemes include (i) margin money scheme, (ii) 15 per cent subsidy scheme and, (iii) training programme for self-employment. Besides this, there is Special Component Plan (SCP) in place since 1980 across sectors for the special development of SCs and Tribal Sub-Plan (TSP) for STs (Ibid).
Gap between legal justice and social justice leading to social exclusion of SC/STs in contemporary India
Despite the impressive range of protective, promotional and developmental legislations and programmes, the caste system in India with its unique institution of Untouchability legitimizes and enforces practices that are discriminatory, humiliating and exploitative to its core. It is characterised by not only exclusion, but also unfair inclusion; exploitation and subordination. Some of the recent studies (Shah 2006, Thaorat and Newman 2009) have brought forward exclusionary character of caste system which involves, particularly for the low castes, a negation of equality and freedom, and denial of basic human rights, which are considered as a pre-condition for the enhancement of human capabilities and entitlements to goods and resources (Thorat 2009:4). Shah, specifically emphasize on three main dimensions of Untouchability – namely exclusion, humiliation-subordination and exploitation (Shah, 2006: 21). Dalits for instance, are prohibited from sharing drinking water sources, participating in collective religious worship, social ceremonies and festivals, entering and using public places, transports etc. which is direct exclusion of Dalits. However, Untouchability also involves force ‘inclusion’ in a subordinated role such as being compelled to play drums at a religious events, besides performance of publically visible acts of (self-) and subordination. Numerous other common instances include the imposition of gestures of difference (such as taking of headgear, carrying footwear in the hand, standing with bowed head, not wearing clean or bright clothes, and so on) as well as everyday abuse and humiliation.
Moreover, Untouchability, as mentioned earlier, is almost always associated with economic exploitation of various kinds and most commonly through imposition of forced, unpaid (or underpaid) labour or the confiscation of property. (Ibid. 21) Almost similar to this is the observation made by Banerjee and Knight, regarding discrimination on basis of caste, that untouchables are disproportionately represented in poorly-paid dead-end jobs. (Thorat, UNQUIET WORDS: dalit voices and vision, heinrich boll foundation: 37)
Most of these poorly-paid dead-end jobs are mainly the ‘filthy’, ‘unclean’ and ‘impure’ occupations imposed on Dalits in traditional caste hierarchy. This notion is closely associated with deeply entrenched belief in the minds of caste-Hindus about the ritual ‘purity’ and ‘pollution’. The inferences for all this are drawn from Hindu religious scriptures and shastras. The tasks assign to the members of Untouchable community are considered polluting, and they generally include removal of dead bodies, dead animals, skinning of dead animals (a source of livelihood for untouchables), and last but not least is the removal and disposal of human excreta. The Dalits are traditionally compelled to carry out these humiliating tasks as these occupations are imposed on them as social obligation. Moreover, the occupations are made out to be the only source of their livelihood as the principle of hereditary occupation blocked Dalits’ entry into other dignified occupations. Thus there is institutionalization of caste-based occupations that the Dalits are forced to perform along with the stigma/pollution associated with their occupations, together culminating in assigning them the lowest status in ritual and socio-economic hierarchy.
Caste system: regulating social and economic life
The dominant role that caste and particularly the caste system with it manifestation ‘utouchability’ play in India’s economy is proved by Barbara Harris-White in her “India Working”. According to her, “Caste still shapes ideologies of work and status… In particular, to be in ‘Scheduled Castes’ (SC) (the lowest castes, mainly untouchables and 29 per cent of the population) makes a person twice as likely to be a casual labourer, in agriculture and poor.” She further observed that, “In towns, all the work connected with sanitation and public health infrastructure, without which the economy cannot function, is entrusted to ‘Scheduled Castes’. Even when employed with by the State, these workers face routine harassment and contemptuous treatment.”(Harriss-White, 2004: 31) But in spite of being capable and competent enough, the Dalits (SCs) do not get entry into secular and dignified occupations or employment, especially when they are traditionally associated with low caste occupation. Harriss-White underlines from her study of market town in Tamil Nadu that, “Although in the great majority of the firms, unskilled workers come from a mix castes, 10 to 15 per cent of firms still employ labour of their owners’ caste and a majority take skilled labour from their owner’s caste or castes ranked close to them. Counting-in family firms, about half the business are single-caste. Low-tech, physically dirty and (still, for some) ritually polluting work, without which the minimal public health infrastructure could not be provide (sanitation, drains, solid waste and disposal of the dead) and the economy could not function, is the safest preserve of Scheduled Castes”. (Harriss-White, 2004: 182) it shows very clearly that the processes of modernization, westernization and even globalization have least impact on caste-based, kinship-based socio-economic ties in Indian society. According to her, “the state regulation and the decades of planned development have strengthened rather than weakened caste as the basis for ‘different’ economic relationships.” She further states that, “Caste membership still affords the trust necessary for informal or illegal dealings, both within the formal sector and between the formal sector and the State. It still provides the networks necessary for contracts, for sub-contracting and for labour recruitment within the informal economy. In fact modernization in the guise of liberalization makes these caste-based relationships more important because it places a new premium on the advancement of interests. In doing so it has revealed a deeply segmented social structure in which caste is ultimately connected with all the other organizations of civil society that comprehensively regulate economy and social life.” (ibid. 178-79)
Atrocities Against Dalits: Long Journey to Eluding Justice
Atrocities and violence against the Dalits are often used by upper castes as mechanism to keep them in their place (assign within caste hierarchy), and to reinforce their caste superiority, social-ritual purity, domination and privileges. Such atrocities take place in multiple contexts but two are most important, one in Dalits’ defiance to remain oppressed/ subjugated or dominated and two, in Dalits’ assertion for their basic human rights enshrined in the Constitution of India and other legislations, programme for their protections and upliftment.
According to the analysis of cases registered under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act from the annual reports of the Act for the years 1999-2003 and tabled in the House by P.S. Krishnan (former Secretary, Government of India), only 50 to 60 per cent of the cases reported to the police lead to charge sheet. Only 8 to 21 per cent of the cases in which charge sheets are filed go on to the trial stage. What is most shocking, however, is that convictions are secured in only 11 to 13 per cent of the cases that are tried. It is further observed that the percentage of conviction is only 1 to 2 per cent when calculated against all cases that reach court (‘Victims of bias’, Frontline, December 4, 2009:27-28). Besides this, the victimized Dalits are subject to numerous covert and overt discriminatory practices during the trial of cases in the courts, which include humiliation in public places and denial of access to basic public services. In other words they are subjected to social and economic ostracism and which does not get registered anywhere. Such a situation is not peculiar to one or two, but to most of the states.
Crimes Against SCs in Maharashtra
Maharashtra, the land of Mahatma Phule, Chhatrapati Shahu and Ambedkar, is one of the most progressive states in India. The year 2010 was celebrated as golden jubilee year of formation of the state of Maharashtra. The state that claims the revolutionary legacy of such social reformers, who spearheaded social movements for equality and social justice, is also not an exception to atrocities on Dalits. In fact, in last few years, it has earned a dubious distinction of perpetuating the most brutal atrocities on Dalits/SCs.
According to the national crime records bureau, an average of 35,500 cases of atrocity against Dalits were registered in the country annually from 2006 to 2008. In 2008, 30,913 cases were registered in the country and 1,172 of them were recorded in Maharashtra. Cases in the last five years include the Khairlanji killings of 2006, the setting on fire of a prosperous Dalit in Hingloli in 2008, and the parading naked of a 22-year-old Dalit girl in Sewri (Mumbai) on June 17 2010. According to t he affidavit filed by principle secretary of the Social Justice department, Maharashtra government managed to secure only 26 convictions under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and 386 cases resulted in acquittals between January 2010 and October 2010. The affidavit further states that, in Mumbai alone, 35 cases are pending investigation and 69 are pending trial under the ST/SC Act. A total of 574 cases are pending investigation and 5,221 are yet to be tried.
Thus, it is the traditional social order that continues to govern the thought process and day to day behaviour of the large majority of the Hindus particularly in rural areas. The provisions and laws in the constitution are secular and promote equality, liberty and fraternity. However, the customary rules of caste system and the institution of untouchability are based on the principles of inequalities encompassing socio-economic, religio-cultural and civic/public spheres. This obliviously creates tension and conflict between what is contained in the constitutions and what is contained in traditional customary rules, norms and values of the caste system and institution of untouchability (Thorat 2002:578). This is not all; even the social, economic, administrative, and judicial arrangements are heavily weighted against the Dalits with regards to the response of the law and order machinery to atrocities against these social groups. This is evident from both the National Commission for SC/STs and the National Police Commission’s documents revealing recurring pathologies, which include such as delays in reporting, refusing to register complaints, delayed arrival on scene, half-hearted investigation, failure to cite relevant provisions of the law, brutality in dealing with accused persons of the weaker sections, soft treatment of accused persons from influential sections, and failing to make arrest on consideration of modification. Poor quality of prosecution, protracted pendency and procedural delays before courts, and high percentage of acquittals are some other common maladies documented by these bodies (Mander 2002:159)
What remain important particularly from the public policy perspective are the two crucial aspects of inequalities which deserve attention, namely ‘inequality of opportunity’ and ‘inequality of outcome’. Centuries of caste-based social organization have left a legacy of inequality in access to land, education, business, ownership and occupation. These processes lead to unequal access to productive resources and thereby lead to material disadvantages. However, these caste-based inequalities do not simply remain limited to inequality of opportunity. it has been often been evident and argued that even highly qualified members of lower caste face social and economic discrimination resulting in inequality of outcomes (Thorat and Newman 2009, Desai and Dubey 2011)
Human Development Index: The Possible Ingredients
The Human Development Index (HDI) is a summary composite index that measures a country’s average achievements in three basic aspects of human development: health, knowledge, and income. The HDI was created to emphasize that people and their capabilities should be the ultimate criteria for assessing the development of a country, not economic growth alone. UNDP uses three indicators to construct HDI, namely life expectancy at birth, adult literacy rates, and log of per capita real GDP (Corrie 1995). However, in recent years, existing literature indicates fair amount of scepticism about using human development or capabilities approach to measure well-being. It stresses need to go beyond incom-based measures (income, health and education) and argues for inter-group as well as intra-group inequalities and disparities (Deshpande 2011:61-64).
It is therefore, argued that in the context of Dalits or SC/STs in India, the human development index must be constructed from the perspective of one of the most vulnerable citizens or social groups of India (Corrie 1995). As a result the elements or ingredients that constitute HDI of Dalit/Adivasis ought to go beyond the existing conventional indicators. Another concern that needs to be highlighted is the fact that this sizable population (Dalit/Adivasis) is not treated as ‘human’ itself, in other words, the element of the ‘human’ is not recognized. Therefore, substantial amount of the efforts of the policy makers have to go in to elevate them to a level of ‘human’ in the eyes of others first, in other words, to establish their ‘right to be human’ and then evolve possible indicators of their development. Recent literature, in this regards throws some light on this, for instance, the economists argue for the construction of Caste Development Index (CDI) which include occupation, education, landholding, assets (including consumer durables) and livestock (Deshpande 2011). Similarly, in sociological literature, an attempt has been made to evolve a ‘Human Distress Index’ (Kumar 2005) which include a number of structural and cultural elements. It mainly focuses on multiple exclusionary processes that Dalits have to undergo in their day to day life. It argues that the effects of the atrocities on Dalits by caste Hindus are qualitatively different from the general types of atrocities. For instance, a rape against Dalit woman cannot be treated as just violation of women. In fact, it is directed to settle the score with the male counterparts from Dalits and to teach lesson to whole community. He therefore, argues that the atrocities on Dalits have social structural basis of caste prejudice. As a result the HDI for SC/STs should include the effects of this caste prejudice, atrocities, their hazardous and unhygienic occupations (manual scavenging) and practice of untouchability (Kumar 2005:529-30).
In the light of aforementioned discussion on social justice, developmental programmes and development indices for SC/STs, there emerge three broad areas or environments that crucially determine survival and developmental outcomes of the SC/STs in our country (Corrie 1995). These are:
- Material Environment: (a) household income, (b) access to dignified livelihood opportunities (presently majority suffer from what Amartya Sen terms as ‘unfavourable inclusion’ referring to unequal treatment or unacceptable agreement. Besides there is complete denial to public/common property resources), (c) assets (such as land) and, (d) claims against the state (equal opportunities and respect par with other persons and groups to fully realize human life).
- Physiological Environment: (a) nutrition, (b) health care, (c) maternal health, (d) economic status, (e) water and sanitation. In this context the emphasis should be on Dalit and Adivasi female literacy which directly impact the physiological environment of their family members and espcially their children. There is plethora of literature to show how maternal health, nutritional status, educational levels, and income levels crucially determine thier survival and developmental outcome (Corrie 1995). Presently SC/STs face discrimination especially in access to social goods (PDS) supplied by government/public as well as by private institution in education, health services, housing etc. They are subject to physical segregation due to untouchability in case of SCs and isolated life in case of STs besides; they find very little scope for occupational (upward) mobility and end up in unclean or poorly-paid dead-end jobs/occupations which greately affects their household income.
- Social and Psychological Environment: (a) socio-political (b) civic and cultural. In political sphere, the SC/STs face discrimination in exercising their voting rights and in participation in the decision making process. In case of STs, the source of exclusion is linked to their ethnic identity and physical isolation. Adivasis have been ethnically different from the mainland Indian population with their distinct economy, language, culture and social organization. They also suffer from what Amartya Sen calls the ‘constitutive relevance’ of exclusion, which arises because of their inability to relate to others and take part in the life of the community and, thus, it can directly impoverish them (Thorat 2009). Similarly, in case of Dalits, it is caste idenity and untouchability that constantly structure thier social environment. A recent study (Shah 2006) covering 565 villages in 11 states, reveals that untouchability continues to be widely prevalent and is practiced in one form or other in almost 80 per cent of the villages. It indicates that although more blatant and extreme forms of untouchability appear to have declined, discrimination continues and is most prevalent in the religious and personal spheres. The notion of untouchability also continues to pervade the public sphere, including a host of state institutions and the interactions that occur within them. Assertion by Dalits and Adivasis for their right to live with dignity and self-respect, unresolved land disputes relating to the allotment and distribution of government land, conflict over legal minimum wages and assertion by SC/STs to exercise thier constitutional rights are some of the major reasons for atrocities and voilance against Dalits and Adivasis.
The above mentioned three areas should form the key indicators for the development indices of SC/STs in Maharashtra.
References
Have you like this article?
Was this article helpful?
(+1 rating, 1 votes)
Loading...