Albatross
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2011
- Messages
- 2,161
- Reaction score
- -3
- Country
- Location
In an agricultural village in the heartland of India, some farm animals belonging to a family of un-scheduled caste Hindus (previously called untouchables) wandered onto the property of a Brahmin. Outraged that these untouchables would desecrate his land by walking upon it to retrieve their animals, the Brahmin had the untouchables physically restrained while someone forced them to eat human excrement......
The place of worship had been filled with tension for months. Members of the lower Vaishya (merchant) castes were forced to remain in the back while members of the Brahmin (priestly) castes took the front locations for the worship time. Eventually the Vaishya left to build their own place of worship, where they could stand in the front. The new facility is a mosque. The Vaishyas who built it had never practiced Hinduism; nor had their fathers or their grandfathers. Yet, everyone knew which caste each family had been converted out of, and many of the social distinctions remain?..
A single woman newly arrived in London from India was seeking a place to live. One of her British co-workers secured a room for her with another Indian family. When she arrived to take up occupancy of the room, the family reconsidered, and decided to withdraw their offer based on the fact that the single woman was from a relatively low cast background. The family had been in London for twenty years, and were Christians?..
A man had been invited by the Indian government to dedicate a statue at Benares Hindu University. He eventually gave up and left because high caste students flung sandals and insults at him. The man (at that time Defense Minister), Jagivan Ram had just finished overseeing the 1971 military defeat of Pakistan. He was an untouchable. After he left, the students purified the area with water from the Ganges River?..
Caste is perhaps the most important and difficult issue to grapple with in missions to India today. What is it? Is it religious, or simply social? Must it be renounced by an Indian converting to Christianity, or is it possible to simply reinterpret it? Can a Hindu become a Christian and remain part of his caste?
India is a collage of different social groups. The Indian community is divided (stratified) into caste groupings that are often associated with occupation. Some groups are on the top, are privileged, and are viewed with great respect. Others are in the middle, are socially accepted and treated quite well. Still others are near the bottom, are barely tolerated and are often mistreated. Then there are those underneath - the untouchables. Their presence is often not tolerated and they are the most despised.
However, caste is only one of the dividing factors in Indian society. Race is also a factor. Dravidians tend to isolate themselves from Bengalis, Bengalis from Aryans, and Aryans from Dravidians. Language barriers also exist. India has 14 "national" languages and thousands of other languages and dialects exist across the sub-continent.
The effect of all this is to create hundreds of thousands of social communities: Tamil speaking Dravidian Brahmins, Untouchable Bengalis, Hindi speaking Aryan farmers, and Telegu speaking Dravidian Jewelers. In many ways these groups act as fraternal organizations (brotherhoods), where it is expected that one member will help another when he can.
Besides caste, language, and race, India is also divided by religion. Sadly, the caste system is more Indian than it is Hindu. The idea of caste impacts Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians in India. Outside of India (on Bali for example) caste has little if any impact even among the Hindu.
Among non Hindus, the effect of caste is often weakened. Sikhs may avoid eating with other Sikhs from a lower caste, but they are not ostracized if they do. It is the same among Muslims and Christians. None of these have untouchables. However, marriage regulations are still tight. None of Sikhism's ten founding gurus married outside of their sub caste, even though Sikhs deny the very existence of the caste structure within Sikh society. The Indian Supreme Court in past rulings has taken note of the reality of the cast structure among Muslims.
Caste has its roots and justification in Hindu religion: the castes themselves sprang out of different parts of Brahman, people are born into a particular caste as a reward (or punishment) for their actions (karma) in their last life.
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. Presently, India's Dalits constitute around 17% of the population. With other minorities, such as tribal peoples, Sikhs and Muslims, minorities in India constitute roughly 85%; the overwhelming majority. To this day, the level of violence against Dalits and other 'lower' Castes is atrocious. Social degradation perpetuated under the Caste system has very few parallels in human history. Such treatment continues to this day. 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.�
On 26th of January 1950, the Constitution of India came into force. This Constitution accepted the principles of equality, fraternity and liberty. Jurisprudentially, the Constitution outlawed all enclosed units and philosophies that support such enclosures by implication. M.V. Pylee, a foremost authority on the Indian Constitution, remarked, '[The constitution] represents the political, economic and social ideals and aspirations of vast majority of the Indian people.'[18] However, between this legal position and the reality of India there is a vast gap. The world's largest democracy has thus failed to develop beyond a mere formal democracy.�
A Caste can exist only within a system of Castes. An enclosed unit called a Caste has no meaning if it does not exist in the midst of other enclosed units. The Caste system is one in which doors and windows to other Castes are closed. To open or to break the doors cannot be a decision of just one Caste. It has to be a decision by consensus. The breaking of Caste boundaries involves an exit as well an entrance. Whilst one Caste may make a decision to exit from its boundaries, entering into boundaries held by others requires their consent. When the most socially and politically powerful Castes want to remain enclosed, lower Castes' decisions to break open can have little effect. When higher Castes rules of internal discipline require strict observance of enclosure, revolts by lower Castes can make very little progress.
Emancipation lies in destroying Caste enclosure. In other words, making it open. Yet in India, after a few thousand years of enclosure practice, breaking open has proved near impossible, despite many gigantic efforts. It is perhaps not difficult to understand the inability of some leaders - those who are reliant on the support of the upper Castes - to take a strong position against Caste. One may recall that even during the early part of this century, the prominent white politicians in the United States could not take up the issue of discrimination against blacks strongly. The emergence of Martin Luther King and his ilk in the United States and Nelson Mandela of South Africa were a necessary part of the process dealing with discrimination in those countries. Ultimately, as understood by Dalits themselves, the annihilation of Caste is likewise a precondition for democracy in India. The solution to Caste discrimination does not lie in toleration among the Castes. It demands nothing less than the elimination of Caste itself, from within Caste itself.�
Discrimination causes suffering, often very deep forms of inner suffering. People who are thus made to suffer withdraw. As result, they also refuse to co-operate. In such circumstances, if tolerance is to have any meaning, it must be sufficiently genuine and strong enough to restore co-operation. Thus discrimination and toleration both reflect the quality of compassion, mercy and justice. If there is a perception that these qualities are missing, the legitimacy of the social organisation and the political system as whole will be under challenge. If such legitimacy is finally lost, deep enmities arise, leading to violence. Violence can reach a point that people become indifferent to cruelty; cruelty they cause and cruelty they suffer. Such indifference kills folk relationships and communication. Ultimately, the test of active tolerance is its ability to genuinely revive the Folk Life in the face of suffering caused by discrimination.
The place of worship had been filled with tension for months. Members of the lower Vaishya (merchant) castes were forced to remain in the back while members of the Brahmin (priestly) castes took the front locations for the worship time. Eventually the Vaishya left to build their own place of worship, where they could stand in the front. The new facility is a mosque. The Vaishyas who built it had never practiced Hinduism; nor had their fathers or their grandfathers. Yet, everyone knew which caste each family had been converted out of, and many of the social distinctions remain?..
A single woman newly arrived in London from India was seeking a place to live. One of her British co-workers secured a room for her with another Indian family. When she arrived to take up occupancy of the room, the family reconsidered, and decided to withdraw their offer based on the fact that the single woman was from a relatively low cast background. The family had been in London for twenty years, and were Christians?..
A man had been invited by the Indian government to dedicate a statue at Benares Hindu University. He eventually gave up and left because high caste students flung sandals and insults at him. The man (at that time Defense Minister), Jagivan Ram had just finished overseeing the 1971 military defeat of Pakistan. He was an untouchable. After he left, the students purified the area with water from the Ganges River?..
Caste is perhaps the most important and difficult issue to grapple with in missions to India today. What is it? Is it religious, or simply social? Must it be renounced by an Indian converting to Christianity, or is it possible to simply reinterpret it? Can a Hindu become a Christian and remain part of his caste?
India is a collage of different social groups. The Indian community is divided (stratified) into caste groupings that are often associated with occupation. Some groups are on the top, are privileged, and are viewed with great respect. Others are in the middle, are socially accepted and treated quite well. Still others are near the bottom, are barely tolerated and are often mistreated. Then there are those underneath - the untouchables. Their presence is often not tolerated and they are the most despised.
However, caste is only one of the dividing factors in Indian society. Race is also a factor. Dravidians tend to isolate themselves from Bengalis, Bengalis from Aryans, and Aryans from Dravidians. Language barriers also exist. India has 14 "national" languages and thousands of other languages and dialects exist across the sub-continent.
The effect of all this is to create hundreds of thousands of social communities: Tamil speaking Dravidian Brahmins, Untouchable Bengalis, Hindi speaking Aryan farmers, and Telegu speaking Dravidian Jewelers. In many ways these groups act as fraternal organizations (brotherhoods), where it is expected that one member will help another when he can.
Besides caste, language, and race, India is also divided by religion. Sadly, the caste system is more Indian than it is Hindu. The idea of caste impacts Muslims, Sikhs, and Christians in India. Outside of India (on Bali for example) caste has little if any impact even among the Hindu.
Among non Hindus, the effect of caste is often weakened. Sikhs may avoid eating with other Sikhs from a lower caste, but they are not ostracized if they do. It is the same among Muslims and Christians. None of these have untouchables. However, marriage regulations are still tight. None of Sikhism's ten founding gurus married outside of their sub caste, even though Sikhs deny the very existence of the caste structure within Sikh society. The Indian Supreme Court in past rulings has taken note of the reality of the cast structure among Muslims.
Caste has its roots and justification in Hindu religion: the castes themselves sprang out of different parts of Brahman, people are born into a particular caste as a reward (or punishment) for their actions (karma) in their last life.
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. Presently, India's Dalits constitute around 17% of the population. With other minorities, such as tribal peoples, Sikhs and Muslims, minorities in India constitute roughly 85%; the overwhelming majority. To this day, the level of violence against Dalits and other 'lower' Castes is atrocious. Social degradation perpetuated under the Caste system has very few parallels in human history. Such treatment continues to this day. 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.�
On 26th of January 1950, the Constitution of India came into force. This Constitution accepted the principles of equality, fraternity and liberty. Jurisprudentially, the Constitution outlawed all enclosed units and philosophies that support such enclosures by implication. M.V. Pylee, a foremost authority on the Indian Constitution, remarked, '[The constitution] represents the political, economic and social ideals and aspirations of vast majority of the Indian people.'[18] However, between this legal position and the reality of India there is a vast gap. The world's largest democracy has thus failed to develop beyond a mere formal democracy.�
A Caste can exist only within a system of Castes. An enclosed unit called a Caste has no meaning if it does not exist in the midst of other enclosed units. The Caste system is one in which doors and windows to other Castes are closed. To open or to break the doors cannot be a decision of just one Caste. It has to be a decision by consensus. The breaking of Caste boundaries involves an exit as well an entrance. Whilst one Caste may make a decision to exit from its boundaries, entering into boundaries held by others requires their consent. When the most socially and politically powerful Castes want to remain enclosed, lower Castes' decisions to break open can have little effect. When higher Castes rules of internal discipline require strict observance of enclosure, revolts by lower Castes can make very little progress.
Emancipation lies in destroying Caste enclosure. In other words, making it open. Yet in India, after a few thousand years of enclosure practice, breaking open has proved near impossible, despite many gigantic efforts. It is perhaps not difficult to understand the inability of some leaders - those who are reliant on the support of the upper Castes - to take a strong position against Caste. One may recall that even during the early part of this century, the prominent white politicians in the United States could not take up the issue of discrimination against blacks strongly. The emergence of Martin Luther King and his ilk in the United States and Nelson Mandela of South Africa were a necessary part of the process dealing with discrimination in those countries. Ultimately, as understood by Dalits themselves, the annihilation of Caste is likewise a precondition for democracy in India. The solution to Caste discrimination does not lie in toleration among the Castes. It demands nothing less than the elimination of Caste itself, from within Caste itself.�
Discrimination causes suffering, often very deep forms of inner suffering. People who are thus made to suffer withdraw. As result, they also refuse to co-operate. In such circumstances, if tolerance is to have any meaning, it must be sufficiently genuine and strong enough to restore co-operation. Thus discrimination and toleration both reflect the quality of compassion, mercy and justice. If there is a perception that these qualities are missing, the legitimacy of the social organisation and the political system as whole will be under challenge. If such legitimacy is finally lost, deep enmities arise, leading to violence. Violence can reach a point that people become indifferent to cruelty; cruelty they cause and cruelty they suffer. Such indifference kills folk relationships and communication. Ultimately, the test of active tolerance is its ability to genuinely revive the Folk Life in the face of suffering caused by discrimination.
