Caste Discrimination

Answer : Though Caste discrimination is worse than slavery and Apartheid in many respects it is quite noticeable in the Indian society. In the Indian Caste system, the following features stand out:

1. Caste was not present in India at all times.
2. Caste is not based on race or ethnicity.
3. Thus, while discrimination by Caste bears some similarity to that imposed by slavery and Apartheid, the Caste system is in many respects more dehumanizing.
4. The essential feature of Caste is its enclosed nature, from the moment of birth.
5. Caste discrimination, based on birth, violates all human rights norms on which UN instruments are founded.
6. Rejection of equality prevents the possibility of associated living among the people. It thus blocks development of Folk Life. Politically, it makes the functioning of democracy impossible.

The very term ‘untouchable’ means ones with whom no social contact of any sort should be held, under threat of punishment. It degrades beyond all comparison. Thus Caste is not a mere division of labor but the most extreme division of social and political power. The question of balancing interests between groups does not exist, for the simple reason that each Caste is a world unto itself. In every respect, Caste rejects the notion of human equality and thus justified enclosure of each Caste within its own boundaries on the basis of graded inequality. In this set-up the idea of common good exists only within each Caste group. Rejection of equality via Caste prevents the possibility of associated living among the people. It thus blocks development of Folk Life. Politically, it makes the functioning of democracy impossible. Caste discrimination violates all human rights norms on which UN instruments are founded. In its application, Caste has led to sub-human treatment of a vast population. Discrimination is extended to all aspects of life: whether in employment, education, health, land holding, security, and all aspects of women’s rights. The psychological effects on ‘inferior’ Castes constitute gross human rights abuse and a continuing cruelty. A Caste is not a mere social group, like a class or religious group. Thus caste has become a reality of the Indian social system and one cannot deny this. But what is more alarming is the caste discrimination which poses a grave danger to the social fabric. The extent of discrimination far exceeds anything that may occur within an otherwise non-discriminatory system. It follows that ‘To the Untouchables, the problem of discrimination in order of seriousness is only next to the problem of recovering their manhood. Caste is a division not of labor but of laborers. The annihilation of Caste is an undeniable pre-condition for democracy in India. Every form of discrimination involves some type of enclosure. It means total segregation,

Answer : Castes are hereditary systems of occupation, endogamy, social culture, social class, and political power, the assignment of individuals to places in the social hierarchy is determined by social group and cultural heritage. Although India is often now associated with the word “caste”, it was first used by the Portuguese to describe inherited class status in their own European society. Discrimination based on caste is prevalent mainly in parts of Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal,) and Africa.

The Indian caste system describes the social stratification and social restrictions in the Indian subcontinent, in which social classes are defined by thousands of endogamous hereditary groups, often termed as jâtis or castes. Within a jâti, there exist exogamous groups known as gotras, the lineage or clan of an individual, although in a handful of sub-castes like Shakadvipi, endogamy within a gotra is permitted and alternative mechanisms of restricting endogamy are used (e.g. banning endogamy within a surname). Although generally identified with Hinduism, the caste system was also observed among followers of other religions in the Indian subcontinent, including some groups of Muslims and Christians. The Indian Constitution has outlawed caste-based discrimination, in keeping with the socialist, secular, democratic principles that founded the nation. Caste barriers have mostly broken down in large cities, though they persist in rural areas of the country. Nevertheless, the caste system, in various forms, continues to survive in modern India strengthened by a combination of social perceptions and divisive politics.

Traditionally, although the political power lay with the Kshatriyas, historians portrayed that the Brahmins as keepers and interpreters of religion enjoyed much prestige and many advantages. The castes did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation or the social status of a group.

Since British society was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the Indian caste system to their own social class system. They saw caste as an indicator of occupation, social standing, and intellectual ability. Intentionally or unintentionally, the caste system became more rigid during the British rule, when the British started to enumerate castes during the ten year census and codified the system under their rule. The Dalits, or the people outside the varna system, had the lowest social status. The Dalits, earlier referred to as “untouchables” by some, worked in what were seen as unhealthy, unpleasant or polluting jobs. In the past, the Dalits suffered from social segregation and restrictions, in addition to extreme poverty. They were not allowed temple worship with others, nor water from the same sources.

Persons of higher castes would not interact with them. If somehow a member of a higher caste came into physical or social contact with an untouchable, the member of the higher caste was defiled, and had to bathe thoroughly to purge him or herself of the impurity. Social discrimination developed even among the Dalits. Upper sub-castes among Dalits, like dhobi, nai etc., would not interact with lower-order Bhangis, who were described as “outcasts even among outcastes”.

Sociologists have commented on the historical advantages offered by a rigid social structure, such as the caste system and its lack of usefulness in the modern world. Historically, the caste system offered several advantages to the population of the Indian subcontinent. While Caste is nowadays seen by instances that render it anachronistic, in its original form, the caste system served as an important instrument of order in a society where mutual consent rather than compulsion ruled; where the ritual rights as well as the economic obligations of members of one caste or sub-caste were strictly circumscribed in relation to those of any other caste or sub-caste; where one was born into one’s caste and retained one’s station in society for life; where merit was inherited, where equality existed within the caste, but inter-caste relations were unequal and hierarchical.

A well-defined system of mutual interdependence through a division of labour created security within a community. In addition, the division of labour on the basis of ethnicity allowed immigrants and foreigners to quickly integrate into their own caste niches. The caste system played an influential role in shaping economic activities. The caste system functioned much like medieval European guilds, ensuring the division of labour, providing for the training of apprentices and, in some cases, allowing manufacturers to achieve narrow specialization. For instance, in certain regions, producing each variety of cloth was the specialty of a particular sub-caste.

Also, philosophers argue that the majority of people would be comfortable in stratified endogamous groups, and have been in ancient times. Membership in a particular caste, with its associated narrative, history and genealogy, would instill in its members a sense of group accomplishment and cultural pride. Such sentiments are routinely expressed by the Marathas, Rajputs, Iyers for instance.

Some scholars believe that the relative ranking of other castes was fluid or differed from one place to another prior to the arrival of the British. Sociologists such as Bernard Buber and Marriott McKim describe how the perception of the caste system as a static and textual stratification has given way to the perception of the caste system as a more processual, empirical and contextual stratification. Other sociologists such as Y.B Damle have applied theoretical models to explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India. According to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher castes.

Flexibility in caste laws permitted very low-caste religious clerics such as Valmiki to compose the Ramayana, which became a central work of Hindu scripture. According to some psychologists, mobility across broad caste lines may have been “minimal”, though sub-castes (jatis) may change their social status over the generations by fission, re-location, and adoption of new rituals. Sociologist M. N. Srinivas has also debated the question of rigidity in Caste. In an ethnographic study of the Coorgs of Karnataka, he observed considerable flexibility and mobility in their caste hierarchies. He asserts that the caste system is far from a rigid system in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time. Movement has always been possible, and especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. It was always possible for groups born into a lower caste to “rise to a higher position by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism” i.e adopt the customs of the higher castes. The concept of sanskritization, or the adoption of upper-caste norms by the lower castes, addressed the actual complexity and fluidity of caste relations.

On the other hand nowadays caste based Reservation only perpetuate the notion of caste in society, rather than weakening it as a factor of social consideration, as envisaged by the constitution. Reservation is a tool to meet narrow political ends. Affirmative Action can be provided at a more comprehensive level taking into account various factors of exclusion such as caste, economic conditions, gender, kind of schooling received etc. A comprehensive scheme of Affirmative Action would be more beneficial than reservations in addressing concerns of social justice.

Answer : The concept of Sarvodaya may be rendered as uplift of all, rise of all or awakening of all. All the meanings of this term closely correspond to each other. In a society only the few are endowed with knowledge, power, prestige and wealth and a very large number are languishing, Sarvadoya wants them to rise above. But since it believes in the upliftment of all, it does not envisage a conflict between the high and the low, between the rich and the poor. A votary of parity of means as well as end Gandhi was convinced that violent means cannot be used to achieve a non violent end. On the superficial level the system of varnavyavastha seems contrary to the ideal of Sarvodaya. But it’s not true. Varna system is one of the most debatable phenomena of India is marked with many controversies.

However, on a deeper analysis, one finds that the basic need for this system was simply to ensure a healthy and flexible society unlike the one which has been rigidified due to the colonial misinterpretaion and mistreatment of varna resulting in the castes as we find them in the present day in India. The original varna system was quite flexible in which one’s varna could be changed based on one’s skill and was not in favour of overthrowing the existing economic system, the system became oppressive because of moral decline. In the original form of varna system, it was quite in consent with the ideal of Sarvodya. The basic idea behind the Sarvodaya is that if the orgnaizers of agriculture and industry could be persuaded to act as public servant, they will win wide public respect instead of the existing hatred. In the original varna system, it was quite possible as it advocated a flexible social system. Even today, if the true spirit of varna system is observed, the ideal of Sarvodaya can be achieved to a great extent.

Answer : In the field of philosophy, India has unmatched contribution. The streams of Indian philosophy are said to be an eternal message of India’s learned stage. Ancient Indian philosophers have expressed their essential thoughts in a special bound in well balanced symbolic stanzas. In all there are six streams of Indian philosophy known as shaddarshan. Principles and subject maters of each of there six streams suggest a particular life style leading to liberation. The Sanskrit world ‘Darshan’ is to see to reflect and to have faith as well. Because of natural curiosity, human being has given philosophy a supreme importance in his life. This is true for both the Indian and western philosophy. But the aim of philosophy in the Indian context is not just limited to the curiosity but it has served as a means to search for liberation or trouble shooting. In fact in the Indian context human’s whole outlook for life has been nothing but philosophy.

Every human being has a different philosophy for life. It is natural instinct of the human being to learn more and more about his ambience. A wave of curiosity constantly pricks his mind with questions like: what relation do I have with my surroundings? Who defines this relation? What is the means to know this who? These intriguing curiosities inspire human being to reflect over the happenings in his surroundings.

The mundane affection has one special feature that a single part leads removal of sorrow and attainment of comforts. But what is comfort? The whole knowledge discussion seems to be very much in confusion. Receiving one item of comfort kindles the desire for another. Thus, the first item becomes a source of sorrow. Similarly, comfort of one person may be the source of sorrow for another. The joy one gets receiving an ephemeral item is instantaneous and short lived. There are unaccountable item each is more in qualities than the other is. But despite the availability of countless objects of comforts, a human being never feels satisfied.

In Indian context the main purpose of philosophical streams is to find such a way to attain the supreme joy. This way should also able to remove the physical discomforts as well. Almost every stream of philosophy identifies the frequency of sorrows as bounding and the removal of these sorrows i.e., attainment of supreme joy has been identified as salvation. Thus, sorrow and salvation form the main theme of Indian philosophy. Salvation forms the main theme of Indian philosophy. Salvation is nothing but destruction of sorrow and creation of supreme joy. Vedas also discuss the way to attain salvation. But many philosophers have very logically reflected over this and compiled their thoughts in the treaties of philosophy. In the opinion of Vedas, religion is the best way to attain salvation. Adi Shankaracharya regards Atmagyan as a means to attain salvation. Buddhists school of philosophy regards four Aryasattya as the basis of knowledge.

The relation of Indian philosophy with life is quite evident from the fact that Indian philosophy suggests four things as very important in life. These are Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. They are the basic means to run one’s life. Hence, all these three are related to desires. But the fourth one i.e., Moksha is desireless. The desire for Moksha cannot be defined as a physical desire. Moksha is in fact a means to attain supreme fortune. Interestingly western philosophy is silent on the question of salvation. That is why western philosophers find a new direction as Moksha or salvation in Indian philosophy. Though some western philosophers have tried o rise above the surface of physical existence and venture into entirely metaphysical world but they have not been successful to attain the gravity that is a trademark of Indian philosophy. The basic reason behind this difference is that in Aryavarta (ancient name of India) philosophy had always been an integral part of people’s life. Whether it be infidel, Charvak or VedantiShankaracharya, all of the above based their philosophy on life. Contrary to western philosophy, Indian philosophy does not simply reflect on the physical elements. Instead it annihilates subjects related to human behaviour action and salvation. Knowledge is an excellent appearance of mind.

Indian philosophy is complete and all encompassing and there is neither any need nor any scope for amendments today. Indian philosophy successfully describes existence of world, life and God. Regarding salvation it covers a journey from the thoughts of Charvaka to the philosophy of monotheism proposed by Adi Shankaracharya. Despite great difference of opinions, almost all the streams of Indian philosophy are unanimous regarding salvation that it is possible only through one’s identification of the basic elements.

Despite this it is possible to discuss common interest and intellectual positions between Western and Indian philosophy, such as positions concerning logic and epistemology. Furthermore, when Indian philosophers ask the question what is real and respond by directing their attention to everyday Western traditions become evident. In spite of all the similarities the ethics dealt by Indian philosophy is conspicuous by its absence in the western philosophy. This also shows how western philosophy has less to do with the life of a human being.