Caste, that inexplicable conundrum of Hindu society, has relinquished some of its’ famed rigidity. Last week, as the nation celebrated Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee’s psychological breakthrough with Pakistan, the Ramakrishna Mission successfully ordained a Pulayar (Dalit) as temple priest at Adoor, Kerala. T.K. Subramandian’s baptism as Swami Vishudhananda was backed by the Vishwa Hindu Parishad, the organisation alleged to be spearheading an ‘upper caste conspiracy’ to dominate India. This path-breaking development, however, was accompanied by peculiar moves elsewhere on the religious spectrum. In fact, of late, a bizarre regressive logic is being used to manipulate caste to provoke social disaffection and unrest.
It is well known that caste plays a prominent role in politics, and that unless dwarfed by mega-issues such as runaway prices or massive corruption, caste equations largely determine the outcome of an election. Most commentators and social scientists regard caste as divisive and violative of equality and human dignity, and fail to appreciate its changing character and dynamics.
Although caste shapes individual and social identity, it is no longer the sole organising principle of Hindu society. Social and religious reform movements, urbanisation, education, economic opportunities, a burgeoning middle class, growing service class – all have contributed to unprecedented social mobility and widening of people’s mental horizons, not to mention the increasing phenomenon of ‘arranged’ inter-caste marriages. Indeed, it would not be incorrect to say that in inverse proportion to its slackened grip over the individual, caste has entrenched itself in politics. This means that as people discount caste in their personal lives (in matters of profession, marriage, friendship, etc), they simultaneously seek ‘identity’ with the larger group. Thus, caste in politics becomes a compromise formula whereby one can enjoy autonomy in one’s personal life, while retaining the protective umbrella of the larger social group.
Caste has thus recast itself. It is now one of the major organising principles of Indian politics. I believe this realisation has caused the otherwise inexplicable volte face of religions hitherto hostile to caste – suddenly they are inventing puerile arguments to legitimise its continued existence! But why would they want to reconcile with the caste monster?
The answer is obvious – they wish to use caste to create a powerful niche in the political sphere! Their goal is to have a say, possibly a veto, in the political process, to check the growing unity of Hindu society and the groundswell of Hindu affirmation currently underway. V.P. Singh’s cynical acceptance of the Mandal Commission Report a decade ago marked a qualitative change in the role of caste in politics. It created a system of proportional representation on the basis of caste that simply overran the polity and sought to control the economy as well. Misled by the slogan of ‘social justice for the backward classes,’ many saw Mandal as a ploy to grant reservations in government jobs to the undeserving but assertive, upper middle castes. They consoled themselves that government jobs were declining, and that the best talent among upper caste youth was attracted to the private (and multinational) sector.
Others, horrified by the sheer magnitude of the new reservations (27%), lamented that this would further compromise the principle of merit in the administration. They contended that reservations were being ‘gifted’ to politically and economically powerful castes to create an impregnable votebank for a certain political formation, making nonsense of the Directive Principle to empower ‘socially and educationally backward classes,’ as ‘class’ is not identical with ‘caste.’ The arguments however failed to cut any ice in the surcharged atmosphere of the time, largely because they were proffered in a spirit of defeat, and were perceived as reflecting an urban, elitist (upper caste) bias.
Mandal’s legacy, however, is far more dangerous than what was ever envisaged by its critics. Today, it has emerged as the ‘route’ to fulfill the pernicious colonial ambition of splintering Indian society through de facto proportional representation on religious lines. Caste is now being forged into a baneful instrument for religions to confront each other in politics.
It is in this perspective that we must view the shameless revelation that the “Church authorities allowed caste practices…” and that the “Vatican authorised a separate cemetery for Dalit Christians…” (Pioneer, 26 February 1999). The doublespeak goes further. We are told that after asserting that “caste practices have no place in Christianity,” the Catholic Bishops Conference of India nevertheless decided to accept caste and to claim reservation benefits for erstwhile Dalits who had converted to Christianity. Father S. Lourduswamy propounds the absurd thesis that “though Christianity preaches equality, in practice caste discrimination is widely prevalent… It is impossible to abolish caste discrimination in various religions, including Christianity” (The Times of India, October 11, 1998).
This falsehood needs to be exposed. The Mahabharata says – that dharma (law) is no dharma that stands in the way of dharma (righteousness/progress). Hindu society’s changing attitudes towards caste prove how much we respect the spirit of our scriptures. The Church, therefore, will have to give a more credible explanation for its refusal to overcome caste within its fold. The Church must realise that it cannot have it both ways. It cannot revile Hindu society and uproot tribals and Dalits from their traditional moorings by demeaning their religious beliefs, culture and way of life, and then refuse them the promised equality and dignity on the ground that it cannot fight the caste system! This is breach of faith.
The Church’s attempt to foist a new social category of ‘Dalit Christians’ and demand reservations for it, is nothing but a perverse bid to use caste to secure a permanent niche in the political arena. This could introduce an unimaginable element of religious strife into the reservation process at every level of administration, across the country. One aspect will be Church intervention in recruitment’s, postings, promotions, et al. But far more insidious will be the powers it will wield at every election thereafter (municipal, panchayat, state or national), as its ‘flock’ will then be irrevocably welded into a unitary votebank.
The result will be a religious partition-cum-apartheid of nightmarish dimensions. Votaries of India’s unique anti-Hindu ‘secularism’ must clarify their stand on such a marriage of religion and politics. I may mention that no equivalent Hindu religious organisation has ever exercised, or sought to exercise, such holistic powers in society and the political process. In fact, I may add that while Christianity today condones separate seats and even separate churches for erstwhile Dalits in Kerala, all reformist Hindu organisations (RSS, VHP, Satya Sai Baba, R.K. Mission) have successfully overcome caste prejudices within their folds and practice communal dining as a matter of course.
We may legitimately ask the Church “and why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?” If the Church collects its flock on the promise of freedom from the scourge of caste, it cannot hold Hindu society responsible for its failure to surmount caste barriers on its own turf. It must have the honesty to admit that Mahatma Gandhi removed the mote of untouchability from the Hindu eye by confronting the problem head-on. The Church should also understand that the consumer has become conscious; it needs to redesign its product before marketing its wares. Else, it may find itself faced with a malpractice suit it may not relish.
The Pioneer, 2 March 1999