India Must Not Shield Itself From International Scrutiny on Caste Discrimination


The international recognition ofĀ caste-based discrimination as a form of racial discrimination may have some tangibleĀ effect on the rights of the Scheduled CastesĀ in India.

Over 80 years after B. R. Ambedkar wroteĀ Annihilation of Caste, caste in Indian society continues to annihilate those proclaimed to be on the wrong side of it. Birth in the so-called ā€˜Scheduled Castesā€™ is a fatal accident with almost no chance of redemption. Constitutional guarantees and legislative mandates notwithstanding, this scripturally legitimised, socially pervasive and politically relevant system of birth-based discrimination continues to haunt and hurt the Scheduled Castes of India, also called Dalits. They bear the brunt of just being born while successive governments continue to fail them, deliberately or otherwise.

In recent years, again, there has been a spate of brutal attacks on them in different parts of the country. For instance, in Una, Gujarat, cow vigilantesĀ attackedĀ a group of Dalit menĀ for merely performing what caste society regards as their caste-prescribed duty; elsewhere, theĀ Yogi Adityanath government of Uttar PradeshĀ bookedĀ Chandrasekhar Ravan, a Dalit leader, under the National Security ActĀ ā€“ a draconian preventive detention law ā€“ when the Allahabad high court had already pronounced the charges against him to be politically motivated.

In a report on minority issues submitted lastĀ year, the United Nations Human Rights Councilā€™s (UNHRC)Ā special rapporteur notedĀ that thereĀ had ben a significant increase in crimes against Dalits. Worryingly, the report also pointed to state complicity in institutionalising the practice of manual scavenging, which continues to kill Dalit sanitation workers and is rampant in India despite laws to theĀ contrary. Clearly, the Indian state has failed to ensure the demise of caste-based discrimination. ThisĀ provides a compelling reason to evaluate if recognition of caste-based discriminations as racial discrimination by India ā€“ and the consequent international scrutiny this will attract ā€“ may have some tangible effect.

International law and caste discrimination

The International Convention on Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination is a major international instrument that aims to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and manifestations from the world. India is a party toĀ the conventionĀ and as per Article 9Ā  is mandated to submit a report, every two years, stating the measures taken in furtherance of the objectives of the convention. This report needs to be submitted to a committee, referred to as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), established under Article 8 of the convention.

The conventionĀ defines racial discrimination to mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. Importantly, the word ā€˜casteā€™ is not expressly mentioned in this definition; however the CERD, in itsĀ 61st sessionĀ in 2002, recommended that:

ā€œDiscrimination based on descent includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste and analogous systems of inherited status which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights.ā€

Despite this, India has consistently reiterated that ā€˜casteā€™ cannot be equated with ā€˜raceā€™ or covered under ā€˜descentā€™ and thus has refused any information pertaining to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or issues related to this group in the periodic reports it submits to the CERD.

India justifies its stand by taking recourse to its constitutional provisions in which the terms caste, race and descent are used separately and thus are mutually exclusive. The fact is, however,Ā thatĀ these termsĀ wereĀ used separately out of abundant caution so as to completely eliminate the possibility of discrimination in a country beset with different kinds ofĀ inequality and oppressionĀ and thus it is difficult to conclude that the terms are completely distinct and that there is no overlap. Further, theĀ Constituent Assembly debatesĀ do not provide much clarity as to the exact scope of these terms. In fact, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)Ā was being drafted,Ā India actually advocatedĀ that caste should be recognised as a prohibited ground of discrimination at the international level, albeit this did not fructify. The issue was raised briefly by its delegates, Mohamed Habib and A. Appadorai, before finally being dropped because, as Appadorai put it, ā€œhis delegation had only proposed the word ā€œcasteā€ because it objected to the word ā€œbirthā€. The words ā€œother statusā€ and ā€œsocial originā€ were sufficiently broad to cover the whole fieldā€ of discrimination.

Interestingly, even the term descent, initially, was not included in the draft definition of racial discrimination under the convention and wasĀ put inĀ only because of an amendment proposed by India. This clearly illustratesĀ the fact Indiaā€™s stance on recognition of caste as a prohibited ground of discrimination at the international level has changed over the years to shield itself from international scrutiny. Considering that even Indiaā€™s erstwhile ā€˜Hinduā€™ neighbour Nepal has no qualms in recognising caste-based discriminationsĀ  within the ambit of the racial discrimination convention, itā€™s difficult toĀ rationaliseĀ Indiaā€™s position.

How bringing caste in would help Indiaā€™s Dalits

Whatā€™s worth mentioning here is that the CERD has already made a number of recommendations on issues that continue to plague the Scheduled Castes of India and if implemented, in earnest, may prove instrumental in improving their condition.

First, one of the notableĀ recommendations of the committeeĀ was that the affirmative action benefits must be given to all Dalits irrespective of their religion. India, till date, takes away caste-based entitlements from Dalits who decide to embrace Islam or Christianity based on aĀ 1950 Presidential Order. The order provides that only Hindus (including Sikhs and Buddhists) can be Scheduled Caste. This has been vehemently criticised even by the government-appointed Gopal Singh committee in 1983. Ā The Supreme Court of India, in the case ofĀ SoosaiĀ v.Ā Union of India, has also conceded that caste continues to exist even after conversion.Ā Despite this, the 1950 order continues to be in force. But recognition of caste-based discrimination as racial may impel the Indian government to stop this religion-based discriminationĀ against a section of the Scheduled Castes.

Second, theĀ CERDĀ has recommended that reservation benefits to Dalits must be extended to the private sector. While this idea has been mooted in India, it has hardly received any serious consideration from the government. TheĀ CERD also urged IndiaĀ to provide protection to DalitsĀ against arbitrary arrest, ensure effective remedies and justice to those who are victims of caste-linked violence and strengthen efforts to eradicate entrenched social acceptance of caste based discrimination. However, since India continues to regard caste-based discrimination as outside the purview of the CERD, these recommendations, relevant as they are, remain on paper ā€“Ā  not even meriting attention from the government.

Recognition of caste-based discrimination as racial may not be the magic wand that would set right centuries-old wrongs or even immediately transform the ground realities in India. But international discussion and concomitant international pressure will surely have a positive effect on the discourse concerning the rights of Scheduled Castes in India, particularly in this globalised world.

Also, India has been vociferously asserting itself as a superpower at the international level and has a reputation to protect and thus may not be able to brush the CERDā€™s recommendations completely under the carpet once it recognises caste-based discriminations to be within its purview. Indiaā€™s periodic reports to the CERD have beenĀ pending since 2008. And in the current scenario of accentuated discrimination against Dalits, not only should they be submitted at the earliest, but they should also provide all the necessary information pertaining to Dalits to the international body. In fact, India should go a stepĀ further and make a declaration under Article 14 of the convention and allow individual aggrieved Dalits to directly approach the CERD. India takes pride in being the worldā€™s largest democracy; itā€™s time it acted accordingly.

Abdullah NasirĀ andĀ Priya Anuragini are assistant professors at Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya National Law University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.

Source:Ā The Wire

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.