caste and politics | SabrangIndia

A morning of outrage and what we choose to see

sabrang — Fri, 06 Sep 2024 06:34:02 +0000

Rape, caste and politics

The breakfast table was filled with apprehension, shock, disbelief, and outrage. Every news channel, every WhatsApp forward, every news headline pointed to the RG Kar Medical College rape case. A doctor, after a 36-hour shift, tried to get some sleep and woke up to a man, trying to rape her. She put up a strong fight, however she succumbed. The gruesome details of the crime lingered in the air, refusing to be ignored.

The conversation started with my parents and grandparents, telling me to be careful, not to go out at night or wear revealing clothes, the usual. I did not have the strength left in me to argue, because who is to explain to them that a woman was raped in her scrubs, the scrubs my own parents and grandparents wear to work every day.

I am sure, this was not just my breakfast table on the August 10, but every Indian’s breakfast table conversation. The mainstream media called this case “the Nirbhaya 2.0.” The Nirbhaya rape case took place in 2012, which naturally made me ask did no other rape case take place in 14 years? Or did we as a society collectively normalise rape, that only one stood out to us?

A few days later, ironically on the August 15, as the nation celebrated its independence, a 14-year-old Dalit girl was abducted, brutally gang-raped, and murdered in Muzaffarnagar. On the same day, a 6-year-old Dalit girl was raped by a 57-year-old government official in Bulandshahr. Yet, despite the horror of these crimes, there were no protests, no candlelight marches, and no public outrage. These are just two of the many cases that greeted me on the morning of our Independence Day — a day meant to commemorate freedom, but one that served as a reminder to the fact that we are not truly independent.

This is not an anomaly; it is merely the tip of the iceberg. Ten incidents of rape against Dalit women and girls are reported every single day in India. According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) in 2021, the country recorded an average of 86 rapes daily and 49 offenses against women every hour. Yet, despite these staggering numbers, the response from society remains uneven, disturbingly selective, and all too often silent.

What was most striking in the discussions I came across was the focus on the victim’s professional identity — “A doctor was raped.” The outrage, when it does occur, seems to stem from the victim’s social status rather than the sheer horror of the crime itself. It begs the question: why isn’t the conversation centered around the fact that a woman, regardless of her profession, was raped? Why isn’t anyone addressing the pervasive rape culture that we, as a society, have allowed to flourish over the years? Don’t all women — irrespective of their caste, religion, or profession — deserve safety, justice, and outrage when those rights are violated?

Incidents like Hathras, where a young Dalit woman was raped and murdered, went unnoticed by the broader public consciousness. The brutal assaults and humiliation of women in Manipur failed to ignite a sustained national outcry. NCRB data detailing the grim reality of violence against women in India goes largely ignored. These heinous crimes seem to only shake the conscience of urban Indians when they happen to someone with whom they can identify, someone from their own social or economic background, someone whose suffering they deem worthy of their empathy.

Newspapers can easily excuse themselves by saying that if they were to cover every rape case in the country, reports of rape would fill up all their pages. But dailies also let go of numerous rapes that deserve coverage given the interplay between sexual crimes and caste dominance.

This selective outrage exposes a disturbing hierarchy of human worth — one that is deeply entrenched in our collective psyche. A Dalit girl in a remote village is not considered “one of us,” while a doctor or a professional woman living in an urban setting somehow becomes a more relatable figure, her pain more tragic and her suffering more visible. Such a mindset lays bare the layers of privilege, casteism, and discrimination that continue to permeate Indian society, even 77 years after independence.

If our outrage is conditional, if our empathy is selective, then we are complicit in perpetuating the very structures of violence and discrimination we claim to condemn. To be truly free, to truly honour the values of independence, what must be confronted are not just the acts of violence themselves but also the social hierarchies that dictate which lives are mourned and which are forgotten. The toxic culture that allows such crimes to happen, time and again, with little to no accountability can be dismantled only when, this selective outcry does not take place, when society and the mainstream media stop framing certain victims as more deserving of justice, attention, and outrage than others.

Independence Day should be a reminder not just of our freedom from colonial rule but of the ongoing struggle for true equality — a reminder that no woman, regardless of her caste, class, or profession, should be seen as expendable in the eyes of society.

What is equally selective, and perhaps even more troubling, is the pattern of outrage directed against the government. The public and political class do not respond uniformly when those in power are implicated in or associated with crimes. During the Hathras case, a young Dalit woman was brutally raped by four upper caste men eventually succumbing to her injuries, there was no significant demand for Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath to step down, even as the state administration was accused of mishandling the case, burying the body of the victim without the family’s consent and intimidating the victim’s family. Similarly, when violence erupted in Manipur, leading to countless atrocities against women, women were made to parade around naked the state’s Chief Minister, N. Biren Singh[1] faced no substantial or sustained calls for resignation from those in power.

This inconsistency extends across the political spectrum. The former Chief Minister of Karnataka, B.S. Yediyurappa, now faces charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, yet this has not led to mass demands for accountability or political consequences. Meanwhile, Prajwal Revanna, accused of non-consensually recording and raping more than 400 women, was still allowed to stand in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections. The lack of public outrage or even discussion around these issues raises an uncomfortable question: Is the outrage we see often politically motivated? Are calls for accountability determined more by political convenience than by principles of justice?

However, this is a question whose answer might be too troubling to confront. It suggests a society where justice is not blind but rather selectively applied, depending on who the perpetrator is and how politically expedient it is to demand action. It reflects a disturbing trend where political allegiance, rather than moral clarity, dictates public outrage. When powerful figures are protected by their political affiliations, the very foundation of democratic accountability is weakened. The selective outrage erodes public trust, making it appear that justice is a tool wielded for political gain rather than a right owed to every citizen.

The West Bengal government, in response to the heinous crime, recently passed an anti-rape bill on the September 4, 2024, which seeks capital punishment for rape convicts if their actions result in the victim’s death or leave them in a vegetative state. This legislative action, framed as a measure of “damage control,” raises fundamental questions about the true basis of our justice system. Are we driven by deterrence or rehabilitation? Is justice merely the administration of punishment, or does it involve a deeper engagement with the causes and mindsets that lead to such heinous crimes?

Proponents of capital punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent, a severe warning that aims to scare potential offenders from committing crimes like rape. However, this rationale is built on the assumption that the threat of death will be sufficient to dissuade criminals. But, as pointed out by one of the rapists in the Nirbhaya case in the documentary “India’s Daughter,” such measures can lead to unintended consequences. The convict chillingly remarked that capital punishment could push rapists to kill their victims to eliminate any witnesses and destroy evidence. This mindset underscores a harsh reality: punishment alone, especially in its most extreme form, does not address the underlying social, cultural, and psychological roots of crime. It does not erase the mentality that views women as objects or the entitlement that fuels such violence. What needs to be transformed is not just the crime but the mindset that enables it.

Philosophically, the debate over capital punishment intersects with Immanuel Kant’s perspective on human dignity. Kant posits that human dignity is an absolute value, one that cannot be quantified or compromised. Every individual, according to Kant, possesses intrinsic worth simply by virtue of their rational autonomy. Thus, individuals should never be exploited as mere means to an end but should always be treated as ends-in-themselves, worthy of respect and value. Applying this principle to capital punishment reveals a fundamental moral conflict. If a person is sentenced to death as a means to deter others from committing similar crimes, they are reduced to an instrument for achieving a social goal. This, Kant would argue, is morally reprehensible. Even when the end goal is to reduce crime or protect society, using an individual in this way violates their inherent dignity. For Kant, justice is not about retribution or even deterrence; it is about upholding the moral worth of every human being, even those who have committed grave wrongs.

Moreover, the idea of using capital punishment as “damage control” fundamentally contradicts the very principles of justice that society should uphold. True justice should strive for more than simple vengeance or deterrence. It should seek to understand the roots of criminal behaviour and work towards reforming not just the individual but also the society that allows such behaviour to exist. The pursuit of justice through capital punishment is a stark irony. In seeking to avenge a life taken, we take another life. Can this be considered true justice, or is it simply a continuation of the cycle of retribution? Can we genuinely claim to value human life while simultaneously extinguishing it?

This paradox becomes even more apparent when we consider that capital punishment, by perpetuating the very harm it seeks to condemn, does not address the deeper social issues that contribute to crime. It does not confront the misogyny, casteism, or other prejudices that fuel such violence. It does not offer a path to healing for the victims or their families, nor does it encourage societal reflection on the ways we enable and tolerate such crimes.

Capital punishment, in essence, embodies the notion of “an eye for an eye.” It is rooted in the belief that justice means retribution, a belief that overlooks the potential for rehabilitation and the moral imperative to respect human dignity, even in the most challenging cases. It fails to consider that justice should aim to transform rather than to destroy.

Instead of resorting to capital punishment, a more profound societal introspection is needed. We must ask ourselves what kind of justice system we want. Do we want one that perpetuates cycles of violence and dehumanizes individuals, or one that seeks to rehabilitate and transform? Do we want a system that reacts to crime with more harm, or one that works to prevent it by addressing its root causes? True justice should involve not just punishment but also education, transformation, and the fostering of a society where all lives are valued and protected. The challenge, then, is not just to punish, but to build a society where the very need for such punishment diminishes — where justice is not just a reaction, but a path to a more humane and equitable world.

(The author is a fourth-year law student at the BML Munjal University)

[1] The audio tapes, The Wire has recently released contain explosive contents including Mr. Biren Singh taking credit for the ethic conflict which took over 200 lives and displaced at least 60,000 people belonging to the Kuki and Meitei communities. Please find the link here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_a7b56ja9I

The post A morning of outrage and what we choose to see appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Sowing division: caste is crucial in Indian elections

Sat, 12 Jan 2019 07:54:52 +0000

Of course, politicians did not create the powerful Hindu caste system. They merely exploit this fault-line, exacerbating the caste animosities to build vote banks.

“Jaati na poocho sadhu ki, pooch leejiye gyan”, sang India’s saint-poet Kabir. (Do not judge a saint by his caste, imbibe his knowledge). However, the most-asked question in an Indian election is about the candidate’s caste. Political analysts ask it, poll strategists ask it, and the voters ask it. The caste-related issues frivolous to outsiders are debated seriously in TV shows and newspaper articles during an election season. Such weird identity-politics is not played out in any other democracy!

Of course, politicians did not create the powerful Hindu caste system. They merely exploit this fault-line, exacerbating the caste animosities to build vote banks. There are four main castes – Brahman (priests and intellectuals), Kshatriya (warriors and kings), Vaishya (traders) and Shudras (servants including the untouchables). They form a hierarchical order that covers hundreds of sub-castes within a caste. Every caste is credited with certain attributes such as valour or craftiness. The tradition of caste-based military regiments established by the British continue.

The tradition of caste-based military regiments established by the British continue.

The caste matters a great deal in Hindu rituals and ceremonies. Caste conflict is a regular feature of life in villages and cities. Many inter-caste marriages are destroyed by social sanctions. Some of these and at times even love affairs end in the crematorium.

A god intervenes

Hindu humans are governed by caste hierarchy, but a god was brought under its purview during the recent election campaign. Yogi Adityanath, BJP’s monk-chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, hit the headlines by telling an election rally that Lord Hanuman, known in the West as Monkey God, was a Dalit (belonging to the most depressed caste). The statement made to garner the Dalit votes caused a huge blowback! In a country where Dalits were denied entry into temples, the Yogi called a god Dalit!

The statement highlighted the astounding complexity of Indian politics and of Hindu religion. Political parties face a difficult choice. They woo the oppressed and depressed castes in order to collect more votes. In doing so, they antagonise some upper castes. Religiosity and tradition expect them to respect the caste boundaries! Many upper-caste voters in the recent elections turned away from the BJP because of its support to positive discrimination in favour of the depressed castes.

By calling Lord Hanuman a Dalit, the Yogi offended the Brahmans, the priestly class. Some protesting Brahmans threatened to sue the chief minister. Interestingly, the Yogi is a Rajput (of warrior caste). BJP’s mentor organisation RSS has mostly been headed by a Brahman and it is often asked whether a Dalit could ever head the RSS.

With the Yogi calling Lord Hanuman a Dalit, the Dalit leaders demanded that all Hanuman temples should have Dalit priests, and these should be handed over to them! The Dalits took their protests to some Hanuman temples and in one they forced the Brahman priest to leave the building.

A woman Dalit MP resigned from the ruling BJP complaining that Hanuman was humiliated and treated as a slave by the high-caste Hindus. She said Hanuman helped Lord Ram win the war against the demon king Ravan and yet this Dalit was turned into a monkey with a black face!

One leader in the Yogi’s own party said Hanuman was not a Dalit but an Arya since the caste system had not started in his age! This will be contested by those who worship Ram as a Kshatriya (the warrior caste). A pro-BJP royal Rajput family claims to have descended from Lord Ram.

Conflicting claims

Contradicting the Yogi, the state BJP minister for religious affairs declared that Hanuman was a Jat (of an intermediate caste). He gave a simple reason. Only the people of this caste jump in to help anyone in trouble and since Hanuman fought Ram’s battle, he was a Jat! A socialist leader of the same state said Hanuman was a Gond tribal. A Jain monk claimed that Hanuman was a Jain. Jainism identifies him as one of the 169 great persons, he said.

A Hindu monk-businessman who supports the ruling BJP invoked the sacred texts to say that the caste is determined not by birth but by the nature of duties performed by a Hindu. Since Hanuman burnt down Sri Lanka and made Ram victorious in his war against Ravan, he was a Kshatriya! While some Hindus do worship Ravan, fortunately none declared that a Kshatriya sinned by killing Ravan, the Brahman scholar.

As if citing the Hindu caste system was not funny enough, a Muslim politician declared that Hanuman was a Muslim because his name rhymed with common Muslim names such as Rehman and Usman! A wag said Hanuman was a Chinese because his name rhymes with Jackie Chan! All such statements were given due publicity in the media and led to serious high-decibel TV discussions! A wag said Hanuman was a Chinese because his name rhymes with Jackie Chan!

Considering half a dozen conflicting claims made about Lord Hanuman’s caste, only a law court can allocate the correct caste to this god and free him from an imposed identity crisis. Secular Hindus grumble that having dividing humans for political gains, the BJP is dividing gods on the basis of caste! Newspaper editors wrote that the poll campaign ought to have focused on the vital livelihood issues instead of on gods and castes.

Caste solidarity and self-immolation

Caste animosities transform the political scene. It happened following Prime Minister V. P. Singh’s decision in 1990 to grant job reservation to the “other backward castes”. The measure, based on the Mandal Commission Report, was designed to reduce inequalities. But by exacerbating caste divisions, it hindered the BJP’s project to unify Hindus on one political platform. The decision did have the political objectives of countering the BJP’s Ram temple agitation and winning the votes of the “other backward classes”.

Anti-Mandal agitation against job reservations for other backward classes.It sparked a violent agitation by the upper caste students. Self-immolation by some students gave a tragic twist to the protest. The agitation lit caste fires in young minds and sparked a political storm. The BJP, whose core constituency includes a large section of the upper castes, resumed its agitation for building the Ram temple and went on to withdraw its support to the V. P. Singh Government that lost its majority in Parliament and resigned.

Many upper-caste voters do not like positive discrimination in favour of the backward castes and resent the BJP’s stand on job reservations for them. The BJP does not dare to weaken that policy and displease the lower castes but its attempt to enlarge its footprint alienates the upper castes as seen in the recent state elections.

Different political parties are supported by a coalition of specific caste groups. Such coalitions usually stick with their preferred party for a few years. Some join a group for a couple of years then switch their support to another party. In some democracies, such coalitions are based on shared ideology, in India these are formed on the basis of caste solidarity.

Building your caste profile

All parties draw up poll strategy on the basis of the constituency’s caste profile. Messages in the election speeches are tailored to suit the dominant caste, ideological coherence is sacrificed. If a candidate belongs to caste A, his rival belonging to caste B fields dummy candidates of caste A to divide the opponent’s votes.

Incendiary rumours enhance inter-caste and intra-caste animosities. False statements fuel sub-caste jealousy. Political rivalry is promoted among the caste groups. The dominant caste in the village tries to impose its political preference on the depressed section by issuing threats. If the election results show that the dominant caste leader’s fiat was ignored, the defiant voters are subjected to violence. Extensive opinion polls, by indicating the voting preference of a particular caste group, make it easy to take revenge.

Newspapers give the caste-wise break-up of the candidates fielded and the candidates who win the elections. Caste matters in the selection of the candidates and shapes the content of the poll campaign speeches. When the government is formed, the media highlights the caste composition of the cabinet. It wasn’t so in the newly independent India when democracy was less mature.

Earlier, some secular political leaders tried to reduce the role of caste in politics. Congress leader Indira Gandhi once ran a successful poll campaign with the slogan: Na jaat pe, na paat pe, muhar lagegi haath pe (We shall ignore the candidate’s caste and sub-caste and vote for the Congress symbol of hand.)

Today no party ignores the caste factor that influences the voting behaviour and creates vote banks. Every party devises it poll strategy by considering castes and sub-castes. Paradoxically, even the BJP, while committed to uniting Hindus, plays caste-based politics in a big way. BJP minister has no hesitation in saying that since Congress President Rahul Gandhi belongs to an upper caste, his party cannot bear to see Prime Minister Narendra Modi who is not from an upper caste. BJP’s spokesman Sambit Patra publicly asked Rahul Gandhi to declare his Gotra (his specific clan within the caste). This question usually comes up when a matrimonial alliance is discussed!

The BJP and caste

The RSS which is BJP’s ideological mentor has mostly been headed by a Brahman and it gives no place to the minorities. A large section of its followers happens to belong to the Baniya caste engaged in business. The ruling BJP, known earlier as a Brahman-Baniya party, has been reaching out to other castes. And yet the organisation is still dominated by the upper castes, as indicated by a detailed analysis of its hierarchy by ThePrint.

Prejudices die hard. So, the BJP leaders in the southern state of Kerala invoked the low caste of its leftist chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan to attack him. He is being asked to leave his political office and go back to his caste profession as toddy tapper. The chief minister is trying to implement the Supreme Court’s judgment lifting a temple’s ban on the entry of young women. The BJP has launched a violent agitation in defence of faith and tradition. It believes that by consolidating the upper-caste votes, it would be able to make political gains. The Prime Minister made vague comments about belief and said nothing to discourage his party men from defying the Supreme Court judgment.

While some BJP leaders do not refrain from making casteist comments, the party has co-opted even Dr B. R. Ambedkar, a Dalit icon. In protest against the oppressive and discriminatory caste system, Ambedkar converted to Buddhism taking thousands of his followers with him. He had warned the nation against Hindu hegemony and burnt a copy of Manusmriti, a Hindu law book containing casteist verses.

Dr. B R Ambedkar, the Dalit icon.The support of the lower castes in elections is invaluable. It is more so for the BJP since it ignores Muslims and marginalises them to please its die-hard Hindu supporters. Since it has to woo the lower castes, in this limited context,
political compulsions have made the BJP less exclusive. It publicises the caste of its candidate if he or she is from a depressed caste. It does so in the case of Prime Minister Modi who is not from an upper caste. If a party opposing it has a large following in a particular caste, the BJP fields a candidate belonging to the same caste in order to draw away voters of that caste. It does not matter any more which caste dominates the party. All parties play this game, but the case of the BJP is worth noting since its declared objective is to unite Hindus. No one talks of the abolition of the caste system.

Caste rivalries and religious polarisation during election campaigns disturb social harmony and often cause violence. Elections come and go but tensions continue. Political leaders generate emotional frenzy through divisive rhetoric, mythological tales and false warnings of the danger posed by the religious “Other” or other caste community. Sectarian statements and violence during the election campaign have become the new normal. In this atmosphere, no one talks of the abolition of the caste system.

L K Sharma has followed no profession other than journalism for more than four decades, covering criminals and prime ministers. Was the European Correspondent of The Times of India based in London for a decade. Reported for five years from Washington as the Foreign Editor of the Deccan Herald. Edited three volumes on innovations in India. He has completed a work of creative nonfiction on V. S. Naipaul His two e-books The Twain and A Parliamentary Affair form part of The Englandia Quartet.

Courtesy: https://www.opendemocracy.net

The post Sowing division: caste is crucial in Indian elections appeared first on SabrangIndia.