The Desecration in Agra Could Not Have Pleased Lord Ram in Ayodhya

Seventy years into our republican existence, this act rather rubbishes the political-Hindutva assertion that a cohesive culture inspires India’s national identity.

Preparations are apace for a bhoomi pujan ceremony in Ayodhya.

The grand assertion is instructively slated for August 5, the day a year ago when Article 370 and Article 35A of the constitution were scrapped by the Modi government, and the autonomy-seeking Jammu and Kashmir state dwarfed to a humiliating Union territory.

This canny concatenation will not but suggest to the media as to which event must be foregrounded on that fateful day, and how. The ceremony in Ayodhya will no doubt showcase to the cadres  the larger cultural point: it is the day when Hindutva will be seen to have triumphed over minority “appeasement” in Kashmir.

Wretchedly, however, there will remain a catch in the majoritarian claim.

News comes in an obscured dribble that the corpse of a Dalit woman was removed from the pyre under upper-caste social pressure, and, despite police intervention, taken away for cremation elsewhere 

Reportedly, the circle officer incharge at Kakarpura village, twenty miles from Agra, admitted that it was “illegal” for a “lower caste” person to be denied cremation by the upper castes, but that the “caste system was too deep rooted,” and that eventually after six hours of altercation, a “balance” was found. And, don’t we know that in an unequal social order, balances mostly tilt in favour of the dominant groups.

 Seventy years into our republican existence, this act of egregious desecration, the ejection of a corpse after being laid on the pyre and about to be cremated—reminiscent of a slave order—rather rubbishes the political-Hindutva assertion that an undifferentiated, cohesive culture inspires India’s national identity.

Representative image. A pyre burner waits for the pyre to completely burn. Photo: Wamika Singh

However alike might be the situation of black people in the United States of America and Dalits in India, there is little prospect that this episode in Agra may become India’s George Floyd moment. Neither India’s civil society movements nor her institutions have yet arrived at a point of revulsion against such blatant and de-humanising aspects of our national life.

Also read: Seeing India Through the Black Lives Matter Protests

Yet, the fact that such breaches in the dominant Hindutva narrative remain with us, dime a dozen, the constitution and the laws notwithstanding, cannot but deform that narrative  in the egalitarian-democratic mind, suggesting that religious identities are no monolith, but conglomerations of the political-dominant and the spurned oppressed within the same denomination.

Clearly, the story that the soul of the spurned, dead Dalit woman will carry to heaven will not be flattering to  the Hindutva propagation that the world is one family (Vasudeva kutumb kum), when in fact even Hindus are not one family.

The problem, of course, is that unlike the onset of the slave trade or Apartheid, India’s caste system does not issue from any government policy, but remains rooted in a cultural narrative indelibly inscribed in religious texts—a circumstance that no reform movement in India thus far has succeeded in combating with the sort of public verve now in evidence in America. Which is of course not to say, as the departed hero of the American civil rights movement, John Lewis, never failed to underline, that the current black-lives-matter movement there will see an end to systemic racism in America.

It is that Abolitionists in India face a task far more insidious than historical racism. That some historians of ancient India have argued that the Indian caste system also has a racial origin (Kosambi) continues to remain a deeply buried thesis, far removed from national consciousness. Although, for understandable historical reasons, that thesis has far greater traction in the southern states of India than in the Gangetic Brahminical heartland. One reason why the dark-skinned Ravana is worshipped in large parts of the republic below the Vindhyas.

Also read: When Will India’s Educational Institutes Have Their ‘Dalit Lives Matter’ Moment?

August 5 may well betoken the triumph of upper-caste hegemony, but it will hardly be a day when universal human rights even among the Hindus may be celebrated.

India’s constitution will in all probability continue to struggle for the realisation of its founding egalitarian principles against a social order  that conceives of India in sectarian terms, especially  when  even modernists elites remain unwilling to strive on behalf of those injunctions.

On August 5, Kashmiris and Dalits may well be of one mind—that Indian citizenship may well be legally universal, but remains in actuality a matter of dominant social choice, reflected more often than not in corresponding executive action.

Bhagwan Ram may well have partaken of Shabri’s lovingly tasted fruit, but the seeds of discrimination that he intended to eradicate thereby remain fertile and sturdy.

Surely, a new avatar is due. 

When Will India’s Educational Institutes Have Their ‘Dalit Lives Matter’ Moment?

Even as students at Princeton force a debate around diversifying faculty and student bodies, elite Indian institutions continue to be in a state of studied denial about Brahmanical supremacy.

Last week, Princeton University announced that it was dropping Woodrow Wilson’s name from its school of public and international affairs.

As a “Wilson school” alum, I say “Amen!” It was about time. As late as 2015, when university students had occupied the president’s office demanding that the university drop Wilson’s name, the response had been tepid and predictable – a review committee was constituted, and it concluded that Wilson’s contributions to the university outweighed his racism that was “significant and consequential even by the standards of his own time.

The killing of George Floyd, an African American man by Derek Chauvin, a white policeman, constitutes the lived reality of black men in the US. This time, however, Floyd’s murder catalysed a worldwide protest movement that has forced institutions like Princeton to take stock of how they are direct beneficiaries of America’s founding sin. There can be no Princeton or Yale without slavery.

Dropping Wilson’s name from my alma mater at best amounts to nothing more than scratching the surface. Princeton, like every other elite institution in the US, is a palimpsest made up of sedimented histories of empires, conquests, appropriation, dispossession and segregation. We still await a fuller reckoning with a “people’s history” of Princeton and its peer institutions.

Princeton’s decision to finally sever ties with Wilson is perhaps only symbolic. However, the action reminded me of how elite Indian public institutions mirror those in Apartheid South Africa and make Princeton look like a mecca of racial justice.

Even as students at Princeton (and elsewhere) force a debate around diversifying faculty and student bodies, elite Indian institutions continue to be in a state of studied denial. About 90% of faculty members at Indian Institutes of Management, where I work, are drawn from less than 10% of India’s social groups.

Also read: India’s Universities Are Falling Terribly Short on Addressing Caste Discrimination

Brahmanical supremacy is at least as insidious as white supremacy. Any Dalit or Adivasi student will attest to how stifling elite Indian campuses can be. Not only do they not have any role models on the faculty body (my institute has just one Dalit faculty member out of over hundred, and not a single Adivasi or Muslim), the nearly monochromatic faculty composition also helps reinforce the widespread Brahmanical notion of historically marginalised students as undeserving interlopers on campus.

“Upper” caste faculty bodies at elite Indian institutions delude themselves into believing that caste is an archaeological relic at odds with contemporary social organisation.

IIM Bangalore. Photo: iimb.ac.in

In reality, these campuses are sites where the ancien régime institutions of ritual exclusion fuse seamlessly with more secular structures of exclusion. I should know. I have been served a “disciplinary censure” for calling out the annual janeu (“sacred” thread) replacement ceremony for what it is – a casteist and patriarchal performative ritual that is an exhibition of dvija domination.

Beyond the official censure, I have also had to take a “voluntary” sabbatical from what has been the most cherished part of my academic life – working with creative graduate students on their dissertation projects. It would be foolhardy to have my students be potentially ejected from the faculty job market in India that is but a Brahmanical guild network in disguise.

Despite these significant setbacks, I got away relatively unscathed. Caste is ascriptive; intermittent advocacy or activism is not going to tear away my “upper caste” shield. A mutinous Brahmin is still a Brahmin – this is precisely how the apparently meritocratic agency of Brahmanical privilege works (and partly explains how the privileged routinely usurp the vanguard in any advocacy for justice). A Dalit faculty member in my position would likely have lost her job.

Elite Indian institutions urgently need to examine institutions of Brahmanical privilege masquerading as meritocracy. The fount of my own “merit” is the generous diversity and affirmative action program at Princeton. I was able to attend Princeton not only because of my accumulated caste privilege secularised in a Nehruvian public sector industrial township, but also because as a brown-skinned applicant, I helped Princeton tick its diversity box.

At IIM Bangalore, where I teach, several of my (Brahmin or Kayasth) faculty colleagues have advanced degrees from some of the best universities in the West and share my broad trajectory. Diversity quotas for brown-Brahmins at Princeton is just dessert. Reservation quotas in Indian institutions designed to acknowledge, if not substantively address, millennia of continuous marginalisation, subjugation, and dispossession is, however, a frontal assault on academic “merit.”

Also read: When My School Principal Refused to Enroll Me Because of My Caste

The Black Lives Matter movement has (rightly) precipitated calls for race reparations across university campuses in the US including at Princeton.  The “Columbian exchange” and the age of European colonialism with all the associated rapacious and violent institutions including slavery must indeed be central topics for any deliberation on reparations. However, the locus of reparations must be conceived at multiple spatial and temporal scales.

In India, it would be utterly hypocritical to not recognise the need for caste reparations. The unmitigated suffering of the precariat trapped between the city and the country during the pandemic-induced economic lockdown has made visible the hidden structures of dispossession. The overwhelming majority of the desperate migrant workers who have perished on roads, railway tracks, railway platforms, and even inside running trains are drawn from the bottom of India’s hierarchical caste totem.

If the modern US is firmly rooted in the brutalisation and subordination of a minority Black population, “upper” caste groups that are numerically in a woeful minority in India have for centuries expropriated the sweat and toil of the labouring castes. While caste dispossession in India is often compared with racial dispossession in the US, a more appropriate point of comparison is the relationship between minority Whites and majority Blacks in southern Africa.

A distinguishing feature of the ongoing Black Lives Matter movement is the number of young white men and women who have come out on the streets. India, especially since the rise of the Hindu supremacist forces, has seen a spate of Dalit and Muslim lynching besides continuing police brutality that disproportionately targets the most marginalised.

Demonstrators gather at the Lincoln Memorial during a protest against racial inequality in Washington, US, June 6, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Carlos Barria/File Photo

Independent India has been built on the back of wholesale Adivasi dispossession. Why then has India not seen upper caste groups come out in support of  ‘Dalit Lives Matter,’  ‘Adivasi Lives Matter,’ or ‘Muslim Lives Matter?’ This conundrum is a subject matter for not only the “entire political science,” but also history, sociology, psychology, and much else. Here, I only want to draw attention to the dialectical relationship between Black Lives Matter and “#BlackInTheIvory.”  To understand why India has not seen a “Dalit Lives Matter” outpouring on the streets, it is instructive to look for the missing “DalitsInTheIvory.”

American universities, despite their structural conservatism, have played an important role in laying bare how white supremacy operates. As my teachers at Princeton taught me, empires are most effectively challenged by men and women who have effectively mastered the “metropolitan language.” The history of anti-colonial struggles around the world is testimony to this elementary fact. Gandhi, Ambedkar, Nehru, Lohia, Jayprakash Narayan all studied at some of the finest western institutions.

Also read: Ambedkar to Payal Tadvi: Codes of Discrimination Change But Dalits’ Nightmares Continue

While it is not wholly accurate to characterise the caste structure as an “empire,” the self-preservation instincts of entrenched privilege is at the heart of exclusionary structures in contemporary Indian universities. Ambedkar’s clarion call, often interpreted as his life’s message, was to “educate, organize, and agitate.” Any mobilisation around “Dalit Lives Matter” must necessarily forge an organic relationship with “DalitsInTheIvory.”

It is also for this reason that institutions embedded in a (Brahmanical) privilege network will resist all attempts at democratising university spaces. Exclusionary “upper” caste symbols enjoying institutional imprimatur mirrors the faux defence of Confederate monuments in the American South as symbols of a bucolic “southern heritage.” For the overwhelming majority in India, the janeu is as much a symbol of exclusion and subordination as a statue of Robert Lee is for African Americans.

Modern universities as sites of democratic thought are also despised by authoritarian regimes of every stripe. The current ruling dispensation in India is no exception. An authoritarian regime’s task is made easier in India by a middle class that is defined entirely by its station in a consumptive network. However, a project of exclusionary nationalism on behalf of its core upper caste constituency cannot succeed should the underclass actually “educate, organize, and agitate.”

Universities represent some of the most fecund sites available for such a fraternal project. The future of India as a constitutional democratic republic hinges on how liberty, equality, and fraternity are forged on its university campuses. Indian institutions, and especially elite technocratic campuses, must urgently begin a “truth and reconciliation” process that includes a transparent and honest reckoning with how they have wilfully supported structures of exclusion for decades.

However, history also teaches us that universities need prodding and nudging from the outside. An institution like Princeton was until not long ago a hedge fund for the 1% (white) elite that also granted diplomas on the side. What will it take Indian institutions to begin engaging with questions of caste justice like how Princeton has done with race justice? Do we have institutional leaders in India with the moral vision to confront this question that has haunted India through millennia – from Ekalavya through Rohit Vemula?

Deepak Malghan is on the faculty at IIM Bangalore. Views are personal.

30 Years On, Mandal Commission Is Still a Mirror for India

V.P. Singh sacrificed his political career but was determined to bring about social justice.

What is social justice? As India celebrates 30 years of the world largest affirmative action programme, Mandal Commission – and also the 89th birthday of V.P. Singh, my bubba (grandfather), who introduced it in the country – it is time to reflect on his sacrifice and the victory against the hegemony of caste elites, and perhaps get a glimpse into his vision for social justice. 

“Caste, for 5000 years, has been the basis of unbridled torture and ostracisation, now it has become the basis of justice,” Bubba’s unforgettable words echoed the Supreme Court’s verdict on India’s affirmative action program that gave 27% reservation to Other Backward Class (OBCs) in government jobs and later on in education too. But how did he understand this?

§

Born in 1931, in the royal palace of Daiya, he was soon adopted by the King of Manda, but the cloistered palaces didn’t stop our “modern Siddharth” (Acharya Vinoba Bhave gave him this title in 1956) from venturing into the villages to empathise with the depressed classes. 

He came from an India where birth defined who you were and then could become. Most of the backward castes had no means of education, nor any opportunity for economic upliftment. Despite living in independent India, the lower castes were still shackled to their wells, their hunger and a degraded life. Caste violence, sexual abuse and forced labour, were daily experiences for many rural, lower-caste families, as the upper castes pillaged their dignity to keep “them under control”. 

“India is perhaps the only place where the majority is oppressed and disfranchised by a minority,” he would say, commenting on the socio-economic foundations of the caste hierarchy. Since he was a child, he had seen this rampant subjugation and wanted to “break the chains”. 

Bubba found solace in books on science and philosophy – Gandhi, Plato, etc in his “favourite place in the world”, the banks of the river Belan. A young V.P. Singh, already a king at ten, with all the comforts of the world, was nudged by destiny towards renunciation and a tenacity for justice and truth. 

Instead of enjoying his royal life, he spent his twenties in social work – building roads, digging wells and organising inter-caste meals (which was shocking for the upper castes) in the Koraon area. Eventually, he invited Vinoba Acharya Bhave to bless his Bhoodan (gift of land) to the landless and inaugurate a school he had built. 

Also read: Remembering B.P. Mandal, the Man Behind India’s Silent Revolution

Before we come to the Mandal issue, we need to rewind to 1989 and understand the circumstances under which Bubba ascended to the prime ministership. It was a time when corruption was at a high, insurgencies in Punjab, Jammu and Kashmir and North-east were peaking, and the Indian republic, in an attempt to become an empire, had sent military forces into Sri Lanka. The economy was faltering as our external debt stood at 20% of GDP and foreign reserves were very low. The fatigue of the green revolution was evident, as farmers were heavily indebted; most of all, communal forces were fomenting hatred.

After exposing political collusion and bribery in various defence deals, he resigned from Rajiv Gandhi’s cabinet and was expelled from the Congress party. While the distance between him and the political elites grew, his fight for truth and his “Mr Clean” image endeared him to the people. They rewarded him by voting his Janata Dal into power; my grandfather became the prime minister.

Mustering up courage, I once asked him what the Mandal Commission was to him? And why did he implement it? In a soft voice, he had answered:

“The day I was sworn in, it was clear that the BJP would not allow the government to function beyond two years, as they wanted to run the government themselves. So I already knew that we would have to to work very hard to implement the promise in our manifesto to implement the Mandal Commission. It was the sole mission of my prime ministership, to free millions of Indians and their children from the clutches of an oppressive system and give them social justice. I had a duty to break status quo and free these people in India’s villages.”

In retrospect, political and upper-caste anti-Mandal commentators have conveniently overlooked the Action Plan of the Janata Dal, which was released in November 1989, which had clearly said: “A cabinet committee will be set up in January 1990 for consideration of the recommendations of the second Backward Classes Commission (Mandal Commission).”

File photo. B.P. Mandal submitting copies of the Mandal Commission report to Gyani Zail Singh, former President of India.

This was published across all major newspapers. And V.P. Singh kept that promise by appointing a committee under Devi Lal to look into the matter and announce the Mandal Commission by the budget session. But due to internal political differences over the election of Jat leader Om Prakash Chautala, Devi Lal’s son, and the exclusion of Jats from then report, Devi Lal stalled the report’s release. Post Devi Lal, Singh entrusted Ram Vilas Paswan with the job and gave him till August to deliver the report for implementation. Paswan completed the process by the end of July, and then, on August 7, 1990, V.P. Singh broke the oppressive, 5000-year-old power structures with a single ordinance. 

Also read: Why OBCs Hold the Key to the Future of Indian Democracy

This was the biggest social revolution after India’s independence. V.P. Singh’s sacrifice was like that of Prometheus, stealing fire from upper castes elites to empower the oppressed majority. A damning punishment followed for Singh. There were threats to his life, character assassination and allegations of political opportunism. But Bubba was unfazed. Much later, he would recall, “People now build their political careers on social justice, I sacrificed mine for it – do you think I cared for the whims of the one percent or for political power?”

He believed, and rightly so, that “releasing and implementing the Mandal commission report was the only way to integrate India, and heal caste wounds inflicted for over 5000 years.” For him, the Mandal Commission was a mirror for our society, and changed political power dynamics forever.

In 1996, he was offered the PM’s post again, but he refused with a poem:

Muflis se ab chor ban raha hoon mein
Par es bhare baazaar se
churaaun kyaa
Yaha vahi cheezei saji hain
jinhe lutaakar
main muflis ban chukaa hoon.

(From a pauper
I’m becoming a thief
But this grand bazaar is full of things I gave away
To become a pauper,
now what should I steal?)”

His 11-month old government finally fell when he arrested and foiled Lal Krishna Advani’s plan to demolish the Babri Masjid—another sacrifice for Mother India. But his fight for social justice didn’t end after his resignation. He made a pledge in Gorakhpur, that he would not return to Delhi until the Mandal commission report had been implemented across the country. He spent the next eight months going from state to state, addressing rally after rally, until the Supreme Court’s verdict upheld the ordinance.

“Violence, can never bring justice, and hate can never bring peace,” he would say when we talked about the upper caste unrest against him. Being the Prime Minister, he could use the state forces, and that too violently to suppress people, but he didn’t. A group of non-upper caste students visited him after the announcements. They were extremely angry at the anti-Mandal protesters.

Also read: Three Myths About Coalition Governments You Shouldn’t Believe

“The papers said all youth are against VP Singh, we are youth too; we represent 80% of them, OBC and minorities included, yet we are still not counted among them. When China and Pakistan, took our land, no one self-immolated themselves, but now when finally backwards caste students get an opportunity to dignified livelihoods and affirmative action they are protesting? We want to counter them in the streets too,” they said.

To this, he replied, “By choosing violence you will mirror your oppressors, so do nothing violent, but study and build your lives. Let them crucify me, if they want, you should not stray from the path of justice and truth”. This story was the final lesson in social justice. 

He would later remark, that the Mandal commission was never about imposing 27% or even 5% reservation, but about giving fair representation to the backward classes of India. It was about changing the social composition of India. In his vision, he wanted to even give reservations to economically backward upper-caste people, but that would require a constitutional amendment and appealed several times to double the opportunities for education and government employment.

V.P. Singh as the PM had a choice – to surrender to political elites and corporations or to destroy them. He chose the latter and his fight for social justice transformed India, and unshackled millions by ending caste-based apartheid. To his dying breath, he continued to be a voice for the voiceless.  

Indra Shekhar Singh is the grandson of V.P. Singh. He tweets @IndraSsingh.

When It Comes to Dalit and Tribal Rights, the Judiciary in India Just Does Not Get It

Instead of questioning why the abolition of untouchability has failed in India, the apex court has upheld and reiterated false stereotypes against Dalits and Adivasis.

Though the Indian constitution envisaged the abolition of ‘untouchability’ and an end to discrimination, prejudice is rampant among the affluent sections of society and those entrusted with upholding the constitution have tended to treat Dalits and Adivasis with utter insensitivity.

For years, ‘mainstream’ discourse in society has focused on limiting the constitutional provisions enacted in favour of Dalits and Adivasis. In particular, two key concerns of these groups — protection from atrocities, and adequate representation —  have been the target of several prejudices, stereotypes, and fake propaganda. It is unfortunate that even the Supreme Court of a constitutional democracy like ours has often failed to sift fact from fiction.

In 2018, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court diluted the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities), Act 1989 (“SC/ST Act”). Instead of focusing on the poor implementation of the Act, the bench said its very application was “perpetuating casteism”, calling it an adversary of “constitutional values”. Clearly, the bench did not have any understanding of the social protection needed by Dalits and tribals.

Particularly in rural areas, these communities have to face social barriers and institutional apathy even to get a complaint registered for an atrocity committed upon them by the upper castes. The judgment of the court had added one more institutional barrier by endorsing a false stereotype against the Act – that it is misused and that complaints under it are questionable. This judgment was later overturned by an amendment in the law made by parliament due to political pressure from Dalits and tribals, and the Supreme Court had to back off from its earlier position in a subsequent judgment upholding the validity of the amendment.

Also read: SC/ST Act: A Hostile Environment and an ‘Atrocious’ Interpretation

The application of affirmative action policies through the constitutionally entrenched provisions of reservations has consistently been limited by the Supreme Court in a series of judgments. The language in these judgments reflects the inherent stereotypes against the idea of reservations. In February this year, a two-judge bench of the court held that a government is not bound to provide reservations, even if there is inadequacy in representation in services.

This view is damaging and contrary to the constitutional obligation of the state to provide adequate representation to Dalits and Adivasis. On one side, the Supreme Court has restricted the application of reservation through its consistent judgments by placing a mandatory condition for any government to collect data regarding the inadequate representation of Dalits and tribals and to exclude the “creamy layer”, before making reservation in promotion policies. But, on the other side, the court abdicated its responsibility by holding that it would not hold the government accountable even if the under-representation of Dalits and tribals in public services is brought to its notice.

The term 'Dalit', which indicated the natural social status of those oppressed by caste, gained huge attention after the Ambedkar centenary in the 1990s. Credit: PTI

Representational image of a protest against caste discrimination. Photo: PTI

In a recent constitution bench judgment delivered on April 22, the court, once again, made regressive remarks against the entire concept behind reservations. The court has held that 100% reservation provided to tribals by the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh in Fifth Schedule areas is unconstitutional. In doing so, the court made an obiter dicta or observation that the “affluent and socially and economically advanced classes” within Dalits and tribals are not allowing the benefits of reservation to “trickle down to the needy”.

The constitution bench noted that there is a struggle within the Dalits and tribals community, and therefore the Central government should revise the list of castes or classes within those castes who can avail the benefits of reservations. The issue of revision of lists was not among the questions of law (as framed in the starting of the judgment) to be dealt by the bench. Yet, the judges could not refrain themselves from making negative remarks about reconsidering reservation structures for Dalits and tribals.

The court had, once again, ignored the basic premise behind implementing reservations, i.e. social representation. Social identities are so entrenched in our society that they often decide the fate of individuals. In some instances, Dalits have not been allowed to take out marriage procession or were attacked for growing a moustache. The discrimination and atrocities did not stop even when the Dalit belonged to so-called “affluent class” within Dalits — a category which the court intends to exclude from representation.

Also read: ‘If Community Recognises Itself As ‘Dalit,’ How Can Court, Government Dictate Terms?’

There is also no empirical backing to the claim that the benefits of reservations are not reaching the lowest lot. The observation made by the Supreme Court is ironic for two reasons. Firstly, the Supreme Court, which as an institution has always asked the government for data to question its reservation policies, is making negative claims about reservation based on the perception and beliefs of individual judges. Secondly, the court has ignored the issue of diversity within its own institution, and has largely been comprised of “affluent sections” from upper castes.

The judgment is also problematic for the insulting remarks made about the identity and culture of the tribals. The judgment authored by Justice Arun Mishra, and signed by Justices Indira Banerjee, Vineet Saran, M.R. Shah, and Aniruddha Bose, held that the “primitive way of life” of tribals “makes them unfit to put up with the mainstream and to be governed by the ordinary laws”.

It was further held:

“The formal education, by and large, failed to reach them, and they remained a disadvantaged class, as such required a helping hand to uplift them and to make them contribute to the national development and not to remain part of the primitive culture. They are not supposed to be seen as a human zoo and source of enjoyment of primitive culture and for dance performances”.

The manner in which the language in the judgment stereotyped tribals as traditionally being of “primitive culture” and a “human zoo” is completely insensitive by any scale and violates the dignity of tribals. The language of the court reflects regressive colonial constructs. If the Supreme Court was intending to show concern for tribals, it should have avoided these words which reflected typical and negative stereotypes against tribals.

The bench must be reminded of the first speech made by Jaipal Singh, a constituent assembly member belonging to a tribal community, and a passionate campaigner for Adivasi rights and equal representation. Speaking about the Objectives Resolution laid down by Jawaharlal Nehru, Jaipal Singh, in 1946, proudly said:

“Sir, I am proud to be a Jungli, that is the name by which we are known in my part of the country. As a jungli, as an Adibasi, I am not expected to understand the legal intricacies of the Resolution. But my common sense tells me, the common sense of my people tells me that every one of us should march in that road of freedom and fight together. Sir, if there is any group of Indian people that has been shabbily treated it is my people. They have been disgracefully treated, neglected for the last 6,000 years. This Resolution is not going to teach Adibasis democracy. You cannot teach democracy to the tribal people; you have to learn democratic ways from them. They are the most democratic people on earth”.

Also read: India’s Cocktail Recipe for Affirmative Action Should Be Replaced With a Simplified One

The identity, culture, and way of life of the tribals is respected by the constitution in text and spirit. The Supreme Court ought to have taken note of this in proper words and should not have spoken contrarily.

It was further noted in the same judgment that it “is very hard for any elected government to have the political will” to make revision in the concerns highlighted in the judgment. The court seems to have forgotten, or perhaps ignored the fact that policies made in favour of Dalits and tribals are not patronising in nature or made out of pity or charity. These freedoms have been won by Dalits and tribals after constant struggle and sacrifice, as they believe that their identity and way of life is in no way inferior to anyone else’s in the country.

Adivasi protestors at a rally in New Delhi. Photo: Reuters/Parivartan Sharma

Each and every inch of progress of these communities towards equality has often come after the loss of several lives while facing social atrocities and oppression. The individuals from Dalit and tribal communities, whom the Supreme Court intends to remove from access to representation under the garb of the ‘creamy layer’ and ‘affluent’ sections, have sometimes occupied key positions in the government and have used it to push for legislation, schemes and initiatives for the rights of Dalits and tribals. The Supreme Court is damaging every bit of progress of Dalits and tribals made through democratic, political and administrative participation.

Instead, the court should consider dealing with questions like why the abolition of untouchability has failed in India or why a Dalit dies cleaning sewers every five days. The court which often pats its back for taking suo moto cognizance of instances of violation of fundamental rights, has never taken cognizance on its own of any instance when a Dalit has been murdered for breaking bigoted social barriers or for marrying outside his or her caste or when a Dalit dies while being forced to clean sewers due to inefficiency and apathy on the part of government authorities.

Of course, there are a few instances when the Supreme Court has supported the issues of these communities. For instance, in the BK Pavitra (II) case in 2019, a two-judge bench shattered the stereotypes and myths around merit and administrative efficiencies, which have been hurled at Dalits and tribals to ridicule them.

Therefore, the judges of the apex court must sit down and decide collectively: whether they want the Supreme Court of India to be known in history as a socially regressive institution like the US Supreme Court, which has been harshy criticised for its regressive decisions on issues relating to the African American community. Or, whether the court should tread the path of liberty, equality, fraternity, and justice, and set an example before others. The ball is technically in the court now.

Anurag Bhaskar is a lecturer at Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat and an affiliate faculty with the Center on the Legal Profession at Harvard Law School. He tweets at @anurag_bhaskar.

This ‘Untouchable’ Caste is Indispensable to Kolkata Hospitals

The members of one clan of Doms, the caste of corpse burners, work in all the government morgues of Kolkata. They have held these jobs for two or three generations.

When Sanjay Mallick was eight years old, his class teacher Mrs Mukherjee summoned his father to school for a meeting. It was the first time Mr Mallick had been called to his children’s school, and he was worried. His three elder boys had never made trouble, and Sanjay, the youngest, was no worse than other eight-year-old boys.

“Mrs. Mukherjee had asked the class to describe what our fathers did,” Sanjay recalled. “I stood up and said, ‘My father picks up dead bodies.’”

“I’ve never heard of a child speak of a parent with such pride,” Sanjay remembered Mrs Mukherjee told his father in that meeting. “You take care of this boy,” she told Mr Mallick. “Keep an eye on him when he enters that difficult age, don’t let him run wild.”

Sanjay’s father Rampreet’s job was to transport dead bodies to and from the morgue in Seth Sukhlal Karnani Memorial Hospital, Kolkata, now known as the Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research (IPGMER). Despite the pride, Sanjay had other plans for himself. He wanted to study hospital administration after his bachelor’s degree. The hospital was a familiar environment and he liked it, but he wanted to be a boss.

“I was in the second year of my English honours degree at South City College when my father died. His pension stopped, the money in the household dried up,” Sanjay said. “When a vacancy was advertised in my father’s department, I applied. I got the job. It’s not what I’d planned, but it’s not bad.”

“I’ve known the hospital ever since I can remember. I got my father’s [residential] quarters, the one I grew up in with my brothers, where my mother and father lived and died.”

Sanjay was recruited as a dissection hall attendant at IPGMER’s SSKM Hospital, one of the busiest and most prestigious public hospitals in Kolkata. His job is to dissect cadavers under the instruction of medical science professors to help students understand the human anatomy. Since 2009, he has also served in the forensics department, which works on criminal cases.

“It was a promotion. Autopsies require more speed and efficiency, more experience, more character really,” Sanjay said. “Cadavers that are dissected for anatomy class are usually undamaged bodies, preserved in formalin. They smell cleaner. In forensics, there are bodies that have been fished out of lakes two days after the person drowned, decomposition may have set in.”

“You have to have seen something of the world to see these things. Fortitude you might say.”

Before his father, Sanjay’s grandfather also transported bodies to and from the morgue. Yet Sanjay carries the same designation as his father and grandfather before him: Dom.

Also read: The Toilet Cleaners of Lucknow – A Photo Essay

In the Hindu caste system, the Doms are corpse-burners. They wash the orifices and clean the body after death, dress it and prepare it for cremation.

The West Bengal government assigns the designation of Dom to all those who work on dead bodies, despite the term’s antiquated origins. In annual hospital reports, only the Doms are labelled by their caste name. This works also as a reservation: a government job restricted to communities listed as marginalised under India’s polarising system of positive discrimination.

Sanjay’s is a storied family in Kolkata. His male relatives work as Doms in every one of the five government hospitals in Kolkata that have morgues attached to them, including the police morgues for investigations into “unnatural deaths”. The entire staff of Kolkata’s government-run morgues comes from the Mallick clan. In each hospital, Sanjay has a cousin, an uncle or a nephew. And these jobs, like Sanjay’s, were held by their fathers and grandfathers before them.

How did this happen? “I’ve always worked with a Mallick in my career. I don’t know how it is, but I have,” said B.N. Kahali, the head of the forensic sciences department at IPGMER. “I started some 30 years ago. Before that I was a medical student. As far as I remember, the professor’s assistants were also Mallicks. We didn’t pay attention to these things really. We focused on medical science, on scientific findings. But I do know that we wouldn’t be able to do the work we do without the Doms.”

The Doms are indispensable to the medical system and society. When a body is brought into or released from the morgue, even family members often refuse to lift it from the gurney into the waiting ambulance or hearse. A Dom from the hospital is called to do the job.

When a Dom is not available, or cannot manage a body by himself, nobody steps forward to help. Some of this behaviour may be due to the inherent horror of death – but a large part is the legacy of the caste system. Not only was touching the dead considered ‘polluting’, those who worked with death – like the Doms – were deemed ‘untouchable’.

Sanjay often intervenes in these arguments, requesting people to help. “Arrey, the body has to be loaded in na,” he says to the most vocal refuser. “But I don’t know how to handle a body,” the recalcitrant Chief Refuser replies. “It’s nothing, just give me a hand,” Sanjay responds.

He is calm, gentle in his persuasion, but always regal. In the hospital complex, people gravitate towards him for directions or help though he carries no ID to suggest he is an employee. Like his father before him, Sanjay also attends meetings of the local ruling party. He puts up pictures of these on Facebook.

Invariably, quarrels about touching a body end with a Dom or two stepping up and doing the job when it is clear none else will. Then, everyone heaves a sigh of relief. This is why Sanjay is given residential quarters inside the hospital, in an area where real estate is limited and valuable. He, as with any Dom, is expected to be on duty all day and all night. A body can come in at any moment.

“In Maharashtra, we do not have a Dom classification,” said Indrajit Khandekar, a professor of forensic medical science at the Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Wardha. “The sweepers or attendants do the job of forensic assistants. They are mostly from the untouchable castes, Mahars and Bhangis. We don’t have trained medical technologists.”

“The section on forensics in the Code of Criminal Procedure was introduced in 1898, and has almost never been amended since then. Whatever few amendments have been made have not made their way to medical schools. So that’s 120 years and counting of one law.”

§

Sanjay Mallick, a Dom in PG hospital in Kolkata, displays a puja tray made of bamboo fibre that he has made. Credit: Sohini C

Sanjay Mallick, a Dom in PG hospital in Kolkata, displays a puja tray made of bamboo fibre that he has made. Credit: Sohini C

In 1836, Madhusudan Gupta first dissected a human cadaver in Asia at the Medical College and Hospital (MCH) in Kolkata. Outside the hospital, a crowd had gathered to protest this unholy act – a Brahmin touching a dead body – so the administration secured the gates and guarded them.

It is said that Fort William, the British settlement in Kolkata, performed a 50-gun salute to honour the achievement. It was a big moment, a member of the highest caste cutting open a dead body.

MCH is known to be the second Western medical school in India, after the French set up the École de Medicine, Puducherry, in 1822. In those years, dissections were conducted only to help medical students understand the human body. They were few, performed mostly by doctors and students, occasionally by their British instructors. Medical students were few and far between as well.

The need to handle cadavers in larger numbers likely arose in 1898, when the British instituted the forensic section of the Criminal Procedure Code. The police were now required to investigate unnatural deaths, including accidents, suicides and homicides, leading to a growing need for handlers to transport dead bodies. Perhaps this is when the hospitals first hired Doms. There were few doctors and medical e students. Besides, the doctors would dissect bodies, not lug them from place to place.

A curious contradiction took shape. As Western medical science was instituted in India, a traditional caste occupation was inducted into the hospital hierarchy. If there was a gun salute when the first Dom helped cut a cadaver, there is no mention of it in the history books.

“There is mention of us in the Mahabharata,” Sanjay said. “The story goes that when the battle of Kurukshetra was over, the gong to signal the end of the war could not be heard because our Dom guru Supan Sudarshan Bhakt was not invited by the Pandavas for the feast of celebration. When Krishna reminded Draupadi, and she invited our guru and fed him with care, the gong rang out on its own. You know, they say that no work can be complete without the Doms. It’s unique, this work of ours.”

§

Sanjay Mallick’s identity card, issued by the government hospital in Kolkata. Note the second line: it says designation (DEG) DOM. Credit: Sohini C

Sanjay Mallick’s identity card, issued by the government hospital in Kolkata. Note the second line: it says designation (DEG) DOM. Credit: Sohini C

Death has been on my mind for a long time.

Late last year, my grandmother was diagnosed with advanced bowel cancer. At the beginning of this year, my father slipped into a coma with a failing liver. He received an emergency transplant from my mother, who donated 60% of her liver to him. I was in a distant city, sleepless, while my parents were in the intensive care unit.

Two days later, my grandmother died. When I received the news, I was told not to share it with my parents. On the telephone, my aunts said my grandmother’s body was soft hours after her death, that she felt like a baby in their hands as they bathed and dressed her in a sari for the cremation.

One day, I found myself lying to Sanjay, telling him that I bathed my grandmother after she passed. There was no rigor mortis, I said, she was soft like a baby.

That night, I dreamed my father was dead. He had had a good transplant, recovered well and was alive. But in my dream he was dead. I shared the news with people whose faces I didn’t remember. The next night, I dreamed again, and again my father was dead. But why, people asked. He was well and now he is dead, I replied.

The next day I told Sanjay I had lied. I didn’t see my grandmother when she died. I’m not sure why I lied. He listened to me, and nodded. Not a knowing nod but a sweet, earnest nod, like a schoolboy.

“Come to us on Sunday,” he said. “We are doing a bhoot (ghost) puja in the morgue. There is a way to end everything. Even ghosts need endings.”

“We know these things.”

This story first appeared in the South China Morning Post.

The reporting for this was done as part of the National Geographic Society and the Out of Eden Walk workshop in Kolkata.

The Harvard Case Could Represent the End of Race in College Admissions

A court case in which Harvard College is accused of discriminating against Asian-Americans could spell the end of race-conscious affirmative action.

Four decades ago, the US Supreme Court cited the admissions program at Harvard College as an “illuminating example” of how race could be used as one of several factors in college admissions.

“This kind of program treats each applicant as an individual in the admissions process,” the court noted of Harvard’s holistic admissions program in the 1978 affirmative action case known as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Holistic admissions is a comprehensive process where more than one reviewer considers factors beyond academic merit, including but not limited to race.

Ironically, the admissions program at Harvard College is now under fire in a federal district court in Boston.

Students for Fair Admissions, a group of Asian-American students, allege that they have been systematically discriminated against by Harvard’s holistic admissions policy. The group is led by a conservative activist named Edward Blum, who has also supported prior efforts to defeat affirmative action.

They claim Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans by restricting the number of Asian-Americans admitted to the school despite their having higher test scores and better grades than other racial groups. They also allege that Asian-Americans were rated lower on personality traits.

Their case has the support of the US Department of Justice.

The outcome of the case, which could be headed to the Supreme Court, could deal a death blow to race-conscious affirmative action in the US. (More on race-neutral affirmative action below.)

This despite the fact that race-conscious affirmative action in the US is not even six decades old, beginning with an executive order first signed in 1961 to ensure racial equality in hiring and employment. Yet, the race-conscious discrimination that led to those orders in the first place stretches back for centuries. It involves hundreds of years of the enslavement of Africans in what’s now known as America, and the taking of land from indigenous peoples.

As mentioned in a research article, I published as this month’s Harvard admissions trial began, the US is not the only country that uses affirmative action to widen opportunity in higher education for historically oppressed groups, nor is it the first. India, which began the practice in during its founding in 1947, and South Africa, Israel and Brazil are among the other countries that employ the practice.

Also Read: Harvard Accused of Discriminating Against Asian-American During Trial

As an education researcher who focuses on inequality in how students attain higher education, I’m curious if the US could become the first of these nations to scrap race-conscious affirmative action in its colleges, many of which have historically have been white bastions of privilege. My examination of the legal attacks on affirmative action in the US shows that the policy is being gradually curtailed and its purpose narrowed.

The case for diversity

In 1996, a case known as Hopwood v. Texas ended social justice as a defensible argument for affirmative action – leaving only diversity as a legitimate aim.

The evidence supporting diversity has been overwhelming. This research has found that a racially diverse student body particularly benefits white students, who are acutely segregated in primary and secondary schools, more so than any other racial group.

Those studies, as well as other analysis, suggest that racial and ethnic diversity increases cognitive gains and real-world readiness for all students through increased engagement and critical thinking.

Despite the proven benefits of diversity, a ruling against Harvard has the potential to close the door on affirmative action in the US for good. If the case goes to the US Supreme Court, affirmative action is not likely to survive given that Justice Brett Kavanaugh – who leans against affirmative action – recently joined the court.

Merit and the limits of supposed objective measures

GPA and test scores are often presented as an objective and fair way to decide who gets admitted to a given college, but those things have been widely found to favour more well-off children.

For instance, students from more affluent and white families have higher test scores. This is largely because they have access to better-resourced schools and college preparation. It also stems from the fact that their parents often have more financial and social resources that can be used to prepare them for college.

For this reason, many colleges look beyond test scores and grades and consider things such as personal essays and interviews. They look for things like leadership potential and intellectual curiosity that suggest the potential for success once students arrive on campus. Many employers and educators argue that measures like these more effectively predict success than test scores.

Measuring diversity through affirmative action

Colleges have also tried to employ racial quotas to make their campuses more reflective of society, but federal courts struck down the use of quotas in 1978 and formulas assigning admissions points to racial minorities in 2003. However, the court continued to uphold the merits of diversity in selective university admissions when race is one of a range of factors being considered.

These non-racial factors may favour rural states with fewer applicants, children and siblings of alumni, and applicants demonstrating athletic excellence with or resilience in the face of economic adversity.

Alternatives to Race-Conscious Admissions

With a narrower ability to use race, “race-neutral” affirmative action emerged in the late 1990s and 2000s, after race-conscious affirmative action was banned in California in 1996, Texas in 1997, and Florida in 1999.

This new affirmative action took on the form of percentage plans in which a student’s high school rank could be used as a means to achieve diversity in the state’s public universities.

Interestingly, class rank is an effective stand-in for racial and socioeconomic diversity only if high schools are highly segregated by race and social class – that is, parental education, family income and family resources. In other words, the ability of colleges to achieve diversity depends on segregation in high schools.

Did these race-neutral approaches work? A variety of distinct and rigorous studies by interdisciplinary education scholars, economists and sociologists found that using social class instead of race was less effective than using race to achieve racial diversity.

There are two important findings related to the future of race-conscious affirmative action and specifically the Harvard case.

First, race-conscious affirmative action bans – even when replaced by class-conscious high school percentage rank plans – typically result in fewer black and Latino students at state flagship schools. How many fewer varies by study, racial or ethnic group, and by state.

Second, California’s top 4% high school percentage plan – still a form of affirmative action – was followed by enrollment gains for Asian students at most state public universities. This finding implies California’s class-based affirmative action benefits Asian students more than race-based affirmative action.

Taking race out of the equation would benefit Asian students at elite colleges as well, based on a simulation study done by Princeton researchers who found a 6 percentage-point gain in Asian-American students’ admissions to selective colleges.

By contrast, the simulation study found a less than a 1 percentage point difference for white students before and after race was taken out of consideration. Notably, Asian-American higher education scholars who focus on affirmative action co-authored and signed on to a brief filed in support of Harvard and race-conscious affirmative action this year. Asian-American and Asian Pacific American professional organisations also publicly announced support of race-conscious affirmative action after the most recent Supreme Court decision upholding it, in 2016.

American exceptionalism

Family background remains the greatest predictor of a student’s academic outcomes, above and beyond a student’s effort, skill and pursuit of excellence. This includes race, above and beyond class. Racial inequality in higher education persist. It hasn’t yet disappeared as some might argue.

And yet, research continues to find that diversity on campus enhances students’ learning, the quality of science and innovation and preparedness for life beyond the academy. And even if it didn’t, the meritocracy undergirding the American experiment requires opportunity and access for all, regardless of colour.

Lara Perez-Felkner is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education and Sociology at the Florida State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

India’s Cocktail Recipe for Affirmative Action Should Be Replaced With a Simplified One

Ad hoc recipes of affirmative action seen from one state to another result in a khichdi of judicial reviews and pronouncements.

The last week of September was one of the most exciting weeks in recent constitutional history of India’s Supreme Court. From addressing the constitutional validity of Aadhaar, decriminalising adultery, allowing entry of women into Sabarimala temple and deciding whether to revisit the 2006 (M. Nagraj vs Union of India) verdict on reservations in promotions within reserved groups, the court announced some landmark judgments that are likely to remain a subject of intense public discussion over the next few months.

It is necessary to study and celebrate the liberal outlook pronounced by justices of the Supreme Court on issues to maintain constitutional propriety. It is also vital to recognise and acknowledge some intrinsic weaknesses of the legislature itself (as part of the political fabric), in debating and passing laws which, in their very order of passing, need to be better aligned with constitutional values, projecting a progressive social policy framework.

From the recent Supreme Court’s decision on promotions for reserved categories in government jobs, let’s take the policy-case of affirmative action for communities in India. A politically charged, cocktailed discourse surrounding the issue of reservation for oppressed or marginalised communities has quite often resulted in a muddled scenario, presenting no coherent social policy or legal framework for groups like SCs, STs. Quite often, such a state of political paralysis subsequently leaves too much in the hand of the courts to interpret and decide. The inevitable voids created from the lack of legislative interventions result in the yielding of extra-constitutional powers to the court itself.

Concept of creamy layer

On September 26, the Supreme Court introduced the framework of ‘creamy layer’ in ensuring reservations in promotions for Dalits (Scheduled Castes) and Adivasis (Scheduled Tribes). The creamy layer test is an umbrella concept that puts an income ceiling on people availing reservations in government jobs and education. Previous to this judgment, the concept was limited to the OBC (Other Backward Classes) quota only. However, from the court’s judgment, there are no deterministic criterion provided in ascertaining income ceilings for reserved groups nor is any information provided on how often the state may need to revise these ceilings (or on what basis). Additionally, there are some fundamental issues of a wider (social) policy ramification that require closer attention.

Firstly, the issue of reservation for SCs and STs is one allowing for constitutional remedies and protection based on historical social injustices done to these groups due to discrimination based on their social identity and not on their state of economic deprivation alone, as the creamy layer test seeks to address. As supported by P.S. Krishnan, an expert in the field of social justice, “backwardness in the case of Dalits and Adivasis cannot be judged using the creamy layer framework, but because they are subject to untouchability” based on their birth.

An individual who is a Dalit or an Adivasi may become a district collector or a higher-ranked state official, but may still continue to be discriminated based on her/his social identity. It was for this very reason that SCs and STs were earlier excluded from the creamy layer economic test, as their conditions of social backwardness had little to do with their state of economic deprivation.

From the Supreme Court’s judgment, there are no deterministic criterion provided in ascertaining income ceilings for reserved groups. Credit: Reuters

While the creamy layer test seeks to work under the principle of ensuring equality of opportunity for members of the reserved groups, equality, for its own sake, must be substantive in nature and not just formal. In ensuring equality of economic opportunity, there has to be a few essentials pre-conditions included in designing reservation policies that principally accommodate for a group’s backwardness, inadequacy of representation and overall administrative efficiency in implementing the policy itself. A similar argument was made earlier by Rajeev Dhavan while defending the Nagaraj judgment of 2006.

More importantly, the issue of caste or identity-based discrimination must be viewed in separation from economic, class-based discrimination. Very few people from reserved groups are actually seen to be part of some higher income occupational group, so, an ad-hoc measure like the creamy layer test can hardly be justified without concrete statistical evidence of some social trend observed within the group.

Secondly, a larger issue remains concerned with the inadequacies of the Indian legislator to present or implement a coherent social policy for affirmative action needed for all reserved groups. The challenge for India is that while many sections of the society remain disadvantaged in terms of social and economic opportunities, political or legislative action has further shifted to reserved groups to much higher relative discrimination.

As a number of communities across states have received (or continue demand for) a higher representative proportion of reservation in areas such as higher education, employment opportunities etc, – and so the reservation pie growing larger – affirmative action across India seems to have become a method of exclusion rather than inclusion. Recent cases from Haryana (agitation for Jat reservation), Maharashtra (protests for Maratha reservation) and Gujarat (Patel reservation demands) echo such socially exclusive, divisive behaviour among groups (often culminating into violence).

Economic backwardness within social groups, surfacing from rising inequities within the distribution of economic resources, mustn’t be substantiated as a legal reason for demanding a representative quota in alignment with other reservation policies for constitutionally safeguarded groups (such as SCs, STs) for protecting them against any form of social discrimination (with evidence of historical subjugation).

The case of Tamil Nadu

Here, the case of Tamil Nadu qualifies as a critical illustration. The state of Tamil Nadu began affirmative action programmes over a century ago (known as the Madras Presidency then) based on the Madras census report of 1871. It enacted an employment law that was primarily based on caste in 1927. By 1980, with successive governments, rate of reservation in higher education and employment stood at nearly 70%. To counter a Supreme Court mandated maximum of 50% reservation, Tamil Nadu set a precedent by including it under the Ninth Schedule of the Constitution (to limit judicial review).

While the measure did explicitly allow for significant upward mobility for reserved groups in government jobs and higher education, there has hardly been any critical assessment to understand the gains accrued to identified groups or seeing actual distribution of economic and social benefits amassed from employment related reservations. Correspondingly, ad-hoc recipes of affirmative action seen from one state to another, subsequently result in a khichdi of judicial reviews and pronouncements, also crowding out essential social benefits to be gained for affected communities and resulting in more social angst amongst groups than before.

Over the past 25 years, India has done reasonably well in reducing absolute measures of poverty and income deprivation. However, relative dimensions of inequality manifesting from the ‘inequality of access’ to basic social and economic services for suppressed communities have exacerbated. The legislator’s inability to address these issues surface from:

1) the lack of a political will to construct a simplified, periodically-reviewable social policy on affirmative action (compatible with constitutional guidelines) for reserved groups;

2) a conscious measure to use caste as a political tool for short-term gains (for vote-bank politics) resulting in long-term concerns from the widening of social fault lines.

While the Supreme Court can do well to review and contain the second reason through case-specific interjections, it is the duty (and mandate) for the legislator to do a critical assessment of all affirmative action programmes and design a simplified policy for social inclusion of reserved groups over time.

Deepanshu Mohan is assistant professor of economics at Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P. Global Jindal University.

Debate: Why a Test Used to Spot Gender Bias in Science Reports Can Be Myopic

In countries where women receive more institutional support than they do in India, it is possible to expect some meaningful insights will arise out of applying the Finkbeiner test to profiles of women in science.

In countries where women receive more institutional support than they do in India, it is possible to expect some meaningful insights will arise out of applying the Finkbeiner test to profiles of women in science.

Students of the Farah Women’s Empowerment Center perform a song at the official dedication of the center, March 10, 2010, Farah, Afghanistan. Caption and credit: isafmedia/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Students of the Farah Women’s Empowerment Center perform a song at the official dedication of the center, March 10, 2010, Farah, Afghanistan. Caption and credit: isafmedia/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

The Finkbeiner test, named for science writer Ann Finkbeiner, was created to check whether a profile of a female scientist published by a mainstream news outlet was produced in the first place because its subject was a woman. It is a good check to make when writing about a professional scientist’s work; if you are going to write the piece because the subject is a woman and not because you think her work is awesome, then you run the risk of presenting the woman as extraordinary for having chosen to be a scientist. However, more than being a good check, it could also be too subtle an issue to expect everyone to be conscious about – or to abide by.

As The Life of Science initiative has repeatedly discussed, there are many systemic barriers for India’s women in science, all the way from each scientist having had few role models to admire growing up to not being able to stay in academia because institutional policies as well as facilities fall short in being able to retain them. And apart from working towards making these deficiencies known to more people, women have also been leading the fight to patch them once and for all. Thus, talking about successful women scientists without also discussing what is needed to fall into place for them could ring hollow – whereas the Finkbeiner test seeks to eliminate just such supposedly miscellaneous information. As Aashima Dogra, one of the two founders of The Life of Science, put it, “The test’s usefulness rests on the myth of a level playing field – there is none in India.”

For example, a 2015 report by Ram Ramaswamy and Rohini Godbole and a 2016 article by Dogra and Nandita Jayaraj (the other founder) both stressed the need for affirmative action on part of the government so more women are retained in scientific pursuits at higher levels. This means science journalism that focuses on a working woman scientist because she belongs to a particular gender and not on her scientific research at the outset becomes useful in the eyes of young scientists but also quickly fails the Finkbeiner test. Does this mean the piece becomes detrimental? Surely not, especially because it would certainly serve the function of holding the people charged with instituting policy and infrastructural corrections accountable.

For another example, several profiles published by The Life of Science suggest that one reason many of the women who have become successful scientists (with faculty-level positions, etc.) were backed up by supportive families and partners. One profile in particular – of Mayurika Lahiri – stood out because it discussed her research as a cancer biologist as well as her achievement in setting up a full-fledged daycare centre at the Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Pune. However, the Finkbeiner test penalises an article on a woman scientist if it discusses her spouse’s occupation, her childcare arrangements or the fact that she could be a role model.

Some women might not like to be characterised in a way that the Finkbeiner test says they should not be. In such cases, the journalist should respect their choice. Additionally, to be fair to The Life of Science, the Finkbeiner test is intended only for mainstream publications and not specialist projects. But at the same time, this caveat could come off as shortsighted because it aspires to make a stronger distinction between changes that remain to be effected for (India’s) women in science to have it as good as its men already do and the outcomes of those changes that have been implemented well. Persistence with the former results in the latter; the latter encourages the former to continue.

In countries where women receive more institutional support than they do in India, it is possible to expect more meaningful insights to arise out of applying the Finkbeiner test to all mainstream profiles of women in science. In other places, the test could be altered such that a discussion of women’s needs is treated on an equal footing with their science instead of having to ignore one or the other. This way, writers will have an opportunity to make sure their readers do not take the pervasiveness of the conditions that helped women succeed for granted while also highlighting that their work in and of itself is good. To go with this: profiles of male scientists could include questions about what they are doing to make science a non-problematic pursuit for people of other (or no) genders, if only to highlight that men often have a mission-critical role to play in this endeavour.

Quotas Are Not a Magic Wand to Resolve Problem of Discrimination in Universities

Affirmative action can only be one, albeit extremely crucial, link in a chain of policies that need to be designed to battle caste disadvantage.

Affirmative action can only be one, albeit extremely crucial, link in a chain of policies that need to be designed to battle caste disadvantage.

There are no significant differences in the effort and academic attitudes between ‘quota students’ and those who get into open seats. Credit: PTI

The reservation system in India, like affirmative action (AA) policies elsewhere in the world, is vilified for a variety of reasons. Critics of the reservation system have for long argued that the policy is unfair because it denies entry to eligible and meritorious candidates for prized positions. This is now complemented by a view, often held by those ostensibly supporting AA, that this policy is harmful to the beneficiaries because of two reasons. One, it sets beneficiaries up for failure due to potential ‘mismatch’, because they are granted entry into institutions and courses that they might not be equipped to handle. Two, it doubly stigmatises them; in addition to the stigma on account of their identity, it stamps them with a stigma of incompetence. Thus, the argument goes, AA ends up doing more harm than good.

The question of the added stigma of AA is hard to gauge, as low-ranked groups are often negatively stereotyped for a multiplicity of reasons, including being considered incompetent. Quota beneficiaries might often face hostility and discrimination inside institutions where they gain access. But the question is: would they be less stigmatised had they not been quota beneficiaries, and had instead chosen another trajectory of study or work?

Does stigma exist and is it internalised? 

I conducted a study among undergraduate and postgraduate students at the University of Delhi that showed that despite being admitted with significant difference in entry scores, (scheduled caste students’ scores in entrance examinations being lower than those of the so-called upper-caste students), there are no significant differences in the effort and academic attitudes between ‘quota students’ and those who get in through open seats. However, stigmatising attitudes clearly exist, expressed through what social psychologists call ‘externalisation’ – the tendency of peers to judge the performance and efforts of students prejudicially, due to the widespread prevalence of discriminatory attitudes towards quota students. Also, although expressed in the context of AA, these attitudes can be seen as reflections of broader underlying social attitudes, rather than distinct or new attitudes that are born because of AA. However, in my study, Dalit students did not internalise these stigmatising attitudes, i.e., they didn’t share their upper caste peers’ view that they are intrinsically less capable.

Does stigma affect the uptake of AA? 

Given that stigma exists (regardless of whether it is internalised), does it discourage eligible candidates from availing the benefits of quotas? There are no existing data sets or surveys that allow us to evaluate this question. Therefore, I did a primary survey in the city of Delhi, asking those who were eligible for reserved category seats, if they had used quotas, either for jobs or education, and if not, the reason behind it. I examined whether there was a difference in the use of quotas between Dalit or SC students, who belong to castes that are already highly stigmatised, and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), whose castes might be low-ranked but who have not suffered the stigma of untouchability. The study revealed several things. One, the use of educational quotas is higher than job quotas, because government jobs, where quotas are applicable, are very few and far between. Two, the fear of additional stigmatisation overall is a small part of the reason for the non-use of quotas. Also, this is a greater consideration for OBC students than Dalits, with between 9-16% of non-users citing that as a reason. The 9% are those who explicitly cite stigma as a reason, whereas the 16% additionally include those who reveal a desire to manage without government help – which may or may not reflect a fear of stigmatisation. Finally, and most importantly, red tape (asking students to run around from pillar to post, not giving information), bureaucratic difficulties (for instance, non-acceptance of caste certificates) and corruption (asking for direct bribes in exchange for reserved seats) are far more important than stigma as reasons accounting for the non-use of quotas.

The quantitative evidence shows that use of reservation is not adversely affected due to fear of stigmatisation. Red tape and bureaucratic hurdles are bigger constraints in the use of reservations than the fear of stigma, which are indicative of administrative apathy towards the policy.

A demonstrator blows a whistle as others shout slogans during a protest march in solidarity for Rohi Vemula in New Delhi, India, February 23, 2016. Credit: Reuters

Experiences of quota students

The reservation policy in India is a system of compensatory discrimination towards castes and communities that have been stigmatised and oppressed for centuries. The system is designed to counter exclusion that would come on account of prejudice, and allow entry to disadvantaged individuals to level the playing field in some spheres. However, due to Dalits’ ‘stigmatised ethnic identity’, which marks them with a stigma of incompetence, they are seen as unworthy recipients of a protective policy.

Affirmative action via quotas is a way of ensuring access to higher education and good jobs to those who would otherwise be excluded. However, quotas are only the starting point – the real challenge lies in how well beneficiaries are able to integrate within institutions into which they gain entry. Rohit Vemula’s tragic suicide in early 2016 has brought the issue of assimilation, alienation and discrimination within educational institutions to the fore.

The focus on ‘mismatch’ (which does not withstand rigorous academic scrutiny) keeps the spotlight on dropouts. We need to remember that several thousands, who get in on quotas, successfully graduate. I also conducted qualitative interviews with quota beneficiaries who successfully graduated. These conversations reveal, one, that even for the successful reserved category students, integration into colleges and university departments is not without challenges, but two, that success is possible, thus affirmative action is not a lost cause.

The running thread in my interviews with students is the repeated invocation of their caste by others, even in contexts where affirmative action is not applicable. Several respondents highlighted disadvantages due to their relatively weaker pre-college background in terms of quality schooling, lack of fluency in English, and lack of adequate academic support at home. Several accounts also pointed out discrimination in schools, and drew attention to a troubling tendency on the part of teachers and peers to actively thwart aspirations by discouraging lower-caste students from aiming high or pursuing their dreams. Several were told to just try for government jobs where they would get in easily on a quota rather than compete for private sector jobs, which the respondents found hurtful and insulting.


Also read: ‘Discrimination, Exclusion Continue to Plague Dalit Students’


What else needs to be done? 

Most of the interviewees were supportive of reservations and felt that they would not have been able to achieve what they did without it. This resonates with the findings of Bowen and Bok’s seminal study of the long-term consequences of affirmative action in the US. However, their accounts indicated that while reservations are necessary to open up windows of opportunity, they are not sufficient to ensure equality.

First and foremost, educational institutions need to establish a climate of mutual respect where bullying, derogatory remarks, and instances of open ostracism are discouraged and met with clear disapproval. Establishment of norms about what kind of behaviour is tolerated might be difficult and contentious, but not impossible, as we know from the progress of legislation on sexual harassment.

The anti-discriminatory legal provisions in India are patchy and need to be strengthened. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (1989), (a modified version of the first anti-untouchability Act), was amended in December 2015. The amendment included new categories of actions to be treated as offences, including barring entry into an educational institution on account of caste, mainly targets caste-based hate crimes. Offences under this Act are treated as a criminal liability, which means that the burden of proof required is much larger than that for a civil liability, as, indeed, is the punishment, if guilt can be established.

However, the conviction rate under this Act is low: in 2013, it was 22.8%, with 84% cases pending in court. This low rate, in addition to reflecting inherent pro-elite and pro-upper caste biases in the system, reflects a critical difficulty in the use of this law: the aggrieved party has to be able to prove that the crime was committed because of their caste status and not because of any other motive. This is often impossible unless the offence was accompanied by open slurs that establish caste as the key reason for the perpetration of the crime. Also, conviction is only possible if a complaint has been filed under this act. Descriptive accounts suggest that even the filing of a complaint – the first step towards redressal and justice – is extremely daunting, especially for those already humiliated by atrocities, not to mention inordinate judicial delays, threats, and harassments, as the decks are stacked against them at all levels. Although this Act is extremely important, as it has the potential to deter violent hate crimes, there is need for a broader anti-discriminatory legal provision.

Tackling micro-aggressions

Focusing specifically on educational institutions, evidence suggests that the more challenging issue might be ‘micro-aggressions’. Micro-aggressions refer to everyday verbal, non-verbal and environmental slights, snubs or insults, intentional or unintentional, which communicate hostile, derogatory or negative messages to target persons based solely on their marginalised group membership.

These are difficult to tackle legally, as micro-aggressions often constitute acts that are, strictly speaking, not illegal. Also, as academic institutions are meant to uphold and accommodate discord, dissent and a diversity of views, it is difficult and indeed undesirable to muffle freedom of expression, unless there is open hate speech. This constitutes a huge challenge in terms of creating an atmosphere inside academic institutions that is based on mutual respect and does not stigmatise individuals on account of their group membership.

Thus, the multiplicity of challenges that Dalit students face indicates that affirmative action in the form of quotas is not a magic wand solution to the multi-faceted problem of discrimination, and can only be one – albeit extremely crucial – link in a chain of policies that need to be designed to battle caste disadvantage.

Ashwini Deshpande is professor of economics at Delhi School of Economics, University of Delhi, and can be reached at ashwini@econdse.org.

COP21 Diary: The Words of the Language That Makes Climate Action Affirmative and Equitable

A 1.5 ºC limit does not guarantee that we will manage to stay beneath it – but getting the words right in a legal agreement can give us a good foundation for future action.

Climate change affects everyone. Words are how we can ensure the solution drafted at COP21 is for everyone, too. Credit: Mark Dixon/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Climate change affects everyone. Words are how we can ensure the solution drafted at COP21 is for everyone, too. Credit: Mark Dixon/Flickr, CC BY 2.0

Paris: Prior to coming to COP21, a climate scientist warned me that climate change negotiations by themselves can be as interesting as watching paint dry. Even for those with a good understanding of the issues and the stakes, hours of debate and political manoeuvring around bracketed words on a page can grow tiresome. Some topics such as CBDR (common but differentiated responsibility – i.e., how to incorporate degrees of development into responsibility for emissions reduction) have been deadlocked for decades.

As such, when incremental change gives way to real shifts in national stance, it can come as a pleasant surprise. One big debate in the past few years has been about temperature targets: should we keep a 2 ºC temperature rise as a ceiling, or 1.5 ºC? Setting such a target would give us approximate numbers for what volume of greenhouse gases we can afford to still emit while transitioning away from fossil fuels. The 2 ºC target, floated by scientists in the 1970s, first gained official sanction as a rough guideline in the 2009 Copenhagen Accord. More recent models show that a 2 ºC rise in temperature could be catastrophic for many countries, however, and as we see today a global temperature rise of 1 ºC is already having severely detrimental effects.

Thus the argument from many vulnerable nations for an official target of 1.5 ºC in the Paris agreement, which other countries are now starting to get behind. Canada, the world’s highest per capita emitter, announced on Sunday this week that it will back 1.5 ºC, and the United States – second highest emitter both in absolute terms and per capita – is beginning to waver on its 2 ºC rhetoric. US Secretary of State John Kerry spoke on Monday this week at Earth To Paris of “sympathising” with the 1.5 ºC target, and suggested that there could be ways to aim for 1.5 ºC within a formal 2 ºC agreement. That same day at COP21, U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change Todd Stern likewise said that the US is open to adjusting the language in the agreement to work towards a 1.5 ºC target, or an aim “as far below 2 degrees as possible.” And although India and China backed Saudi Arabia’s move to block a 1.5 ºC target on Thursday December 3, both have now announced a willingness to support a 1.5 ºC target provided that the developed world takes on the burden of responsibility for getting there.

A 1.5 ºC limit does not guarantee that we will manage to stay beneath it – but getting the words right in a legal agreement can give us a good foundation for future action. And thus there are many members of civil society at COP21 involved in just that: engaging directly with the negotiators to make sure that whatever words end up in the final agreement on Friday, those words safeguard the rights of the most vulnerable of this world.

Indeed, according to Harjeet Singh, International Climate Policy Manager of ActionAid, the push from civil society was one large factor behind India’s shift on Monday towards agreeing to 1.5 ºC. “Due to our pressure and continuous engagement, India is also now standing behind 1.5 degrees,” he said. Even though civil society has been kept from the negotiating rooms more than they would like, they are still able to meet with and advise the negotiators.“As civil society, our voice matters,” said Singh.  

And practically speaking, how does civil society go about engaging with negotiators and making its voice heard? “We play all kinds of roles,” Singh explained. “We analyse texts, we develop options. We do very strong lobbying and we push them. We say we understand their concerns. Sometimes we also play the role of bridge-builder.”

Looking at each area of present concern at COP21 – from emissions targets to food security to women’s rights – there will be lobbyists from civil society, working to bridge the gap between the concerns of the outside world and shuttered negotiating halls. Kashmala Kakakhel is Climate Finance Fellow with the Women’s Environment and Development Organization. She and her colleagues here at Le Bourget have been working “round the clock,” she says, to analyse iterated versions of the draft text from the standpoint of gender equality and women’s concerns, and to then provide advice to negotiators on how to incorporate gender into the agreement.

“Women are impacted differently by climate disasters than men,” said Kakakhel on Tuesday. “They have different needs, and they need to be supported in a different way.” This is especially true in the global south, she says, where women are particularly climate vulnerable.

Like Singh’s work, Kakakhel’s work is arduous and sometimes easily undone. Fight to include a word in one draft and you might see temporary success only to have negotiators threaten to trim it in the next. “We almost lost preference to gender as the texts were coming out on climate finance,” said Kakakhel. If your concern happens to be in a contentious paragraph, it may also come under the scythe.

But neither Singh nor Kakakhel loses sight of the point of these words, and thus their importance: that they will one day have a measurable impact on the lives of people who are not here and do not have this access. “I think the negotiators do a wonderful job being here and pushing for gender rights, gender equality,” said Kakakhel. But in her view, the real work is at the grass roots level, working alongside rural women to help them adapt to climate change. That work starts once this work ends, and the Paris agreement starts having tangible results.