The Dalit question
The Economist tells me something I didn’t know: Jeremy Corbyn is an advocate of justice for Dalits.
Specifically, Mr Corbyn wants British law to prohibit discrimination on grounds of caste, a step which the government seems reluctant to take, and one which some prominent British Hindus adamantly oppose. These opponents insist that the existence of caste discrimination in Britain is unproven, and that outlawing it would be an insult to the Indian community.
Except of course for the Dalit portion of “the Indian community.”
All this matters more than ever because a political battle over the Dalit question may soon come to a head in Britain after simmering for a long time. Arguments over whether Britain should explicitly outlaw maltreatment on grounds of caste have been in progress since at least 2010 when an Equality Act made it illegal to discriminate (in the treatment of employees and customers, or the provision of state services) on a familiar list of criteria, including race, ethnicity, religion and gender.
In its initial version, the Act said that the government “may” add caste to the catalogue of protected characteristics if the need were to become obvious. Then in April 2013, after some lively debate in both Houses of Parliament, the government reluctantly agreed to a new forms of words, spelling out that it “must” add caste to the list.
But they’re still talking about it, and dragging out the process. Mustn’t rush into these things.
Meena Varma of the Dalit Solidarity Network says she believes that Hindu lobbyists are pressing the government “at the highest level” to drop the idea of legislating against caste discrimination. On the other other hand, the list of people and bodies who still think that Britain should outlaw caste discrimination is also quite impressive; not only Mr Corbyn but Anglican bishops, some respected Liberal Democratic and Conservative peers, the National Secular Society, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and Navi Pillay, who till recently was UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
So the Labour leader is not alone in his concern for the Dalits, whether in India or Britain. But as he may soon discover, people who speak out for the wretched of the earth can get themselves called all manner of unpleasant things, from neo-colonialist to Orientalist.
Because only a neo-colonialist Orientalist would insult the Indian community by advocating the outlawing of caste discrimination. So Dalits are neo-colonialist Orientalists, so they can safely be forgotten.
There is a point to that (the equivalent would be the outlawing of Sharia in USA) – But I would agree that the discrimination exists , even in Britain, but it is more subtle (in the sense of the friends you keep and the people you invite to your home and the approved set of people who can marry your children rather than wont eat in the same room or hire them type of discrimination.
And it is ofcourse quite stupid to think that outlawing any form of discrimination is an insult to anyone.
Is that really an equivalent though? Does outlawing a particular form of discrimination necessarily imply that it’s happening? And is outlawing it really as pointless as outlawing sharia in the US, where there are all sorts of legal barriers already in place?
Deepak, Sharia is outlawed in the US when it conflicts with the actual law of the land. The same is true in Britain.
It’s just sad that laws need to be passed explicitly pointing out that the law must be applied. As if people didn’t know that. They certainly try to pretend that when they think it’s to their benefit.
Explicitly including caste in anti-discrimination laws is not needed because people are excluded from dinner parties. It’s because people suffer job discrimination, rejection from schools, things that are already illegal but bigots want to be able to defend themselves by saying, “What? What?? I’m not doing anything!”
And if bigots are insulted by making bigotry illegal, who cares?
One law for all – sound at all familiar?
If only it were so, at least in one country at a time. And democratically instituted laws of course.
Of *course* it should be illegal to discriminate based on caste in Britain. Would the British think a US ex-pat should be allowed to not hire blacks because “I’m from the South, and it’s part of our culture’? Or a white South African be allowed to refuse to provide service to black customers? It seems to me that it’s extremely patronizing to pretend that discrimination within a culture is okay because it’s “their way”. In Britain, people are all supposed to have rights.
I am
probablycertainly hopelessly naïve, but it seems to me that anti-discrimination laws might work better if they didn’t try to list all the characteristics one is not supposed to discriminate by. Where will such a list end? Is it okay to discriminate against people who eat lutefisk, or does it need to be added to an already infinitely long list? Of course it should be against the law to discriminate against Dalits because they’re Dalits, but that shouldn’t depend on this characteristic having made the list; it should be because being Dalit or not has no bearing on your ability to do the job. Or to rent that apartment without wrecking it or defaulting on the payments, or whatever it is that the Dalit is trying to do.As I said, I am hopelessly naïve, which is hereby amply demonstrated.
Harald, I suspect it dates back to the time when the first anti-discrimination laws came in. There were still groups in society whose behaviour was widely despised and indeed criminal and so discrimination was not only permitted, but expected. Essentially the law identifies categories of people who are discriminated against but who are ‘blameless’.
I suspect law makers would argue that an employer, landlord or club for example should be permitted to discriminate against (extreme example) convicted child rapists.
Yes, it is ok to discriminate against people who eat lutefisk, straight after they have done so and also while they are doing so! :-)
I meant the equivalency in the sense that people would pause and wonder about motivations of the people trying to pass these laws. I’ve seen responses of the sort that so many of these Britishers are racist – where are their anti-discrimination laws then. (To clarify I dont agree )
From where I stand , I’d think probably say that it wont come close to achieve what its meant to –
Discrimination by caste in say UK(anecdotally) is rarely overt and legally demonstrable . But its always better to have legal protections – though I think I agree with #6 – Listing down characteristics might not be a good thing if it comes to matters related to Indians – we tend to discriminate over everything – The language you speak , the state that you were born in, the skin color, the food you eat. etc (in addition to all the other characteristics) – perhaps discriminate is a string word- maybe I should use preferential hiring.
@quixote
Agreed – but that is not how these things work in practice right – The social pressures mean that even if people are aware of the legal options available to them , they might not take it.
This by Steve Farmer from 2006 is relevant –
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2006/hindutva-california-textbooks-and-a-smear-campaign/
If it’s pointless (the injustice it proscribes is not real) yet legislated, it’s no biggie either way, for it will never be invoked; if it’s not pointless (the injustice is real) yet not legislated, then the injustice will not be addressed.
Relevant cost-benefit considerations are no less important than ideological considerations, and the cost here is minimal.
No, it’s not necessarily pointless either way, because laws against things that aren’t going to happen can just be a way of bullying a minority.
Ophelia, sure. Can be, but in this specific case, I think not.
I grant that if it’s specifically about caste and thus it’s only applicable to particular cultural/ethnic groups, but still, I can’t see how it would be bullying. Subject to abuse/misuse, but then so is any law.
True, John.
If something is not specifically named as discrimination in itself or as a type of behaviour which falls under the law then no protection is available. Because it is, almost invariably, the relatively powerful who discriminate against the relatively powerless then they can drag this through the courts for 20 years, arguing that it is custom, habit, personal taste.
Where the law is specific then it is a damn sight easier to achieve redress even though the guilty party will still come out of the court and tell the press he is utterly bewildered by the decision. This is true of the caste system as it has been of all the other discriminations we have been addressing all these years.
John – we’re talking at cross-purposes here – I meant the silly laws against sharia in the US.
Ophelia, ah. Yes.
So, the objection to passing such an anti-discrimination law is that this discrimination is a Bad Thing That We Totally Don’t Do, and the passage of such law is only necessary if the thing being banned actually exists. But remember that the thing under discussion is a Bad Thing That We Totally Don’t Do therefore it should remain legal. Fucking stupid.
I would be more inclined to accept a campaign to outlaw discrimination against a particular group were it being promoted by someone other than Corbyn, who is perfectly happy to host Hamas, Hezbollah and other vicious Islamists (they’re “progressive” and “anti-imperialist” don’t you know?).
“These opponents insist that the existence of caste discrimination in Britain is unproven, and that outlawing it would be an insult to the Indian community.”
Sophistry.
Isn’t caste discrimination an aspect of Hinduism, therefore it’s an insult to the intelligence to claim that it there’s no evidence for its practice in the UK, i.e. wouldn’t pious Hindus practise caste discrimination?
Caste is a repugnant system and has no place in a liberal democracy, it is indefensible either by custom or religion.
Helene@17
“I would be more inclined to accept a campaign to outlaw discrimination against a particular group were it being promoted by someone other than Corbyn,”
Why does that matter? The issue is one of principle, do we all wait indefinitely until we approve of the messenger? I hope Corbyn succeeds in his campaign.
One problem with identifying caste is that it singles out one particular religion as problematic (when there may be others which have similar problems). So I would suggest a more generic prohibition against discrimination on the basis of status within any religion – except perhaps for functions which are unique to that religion (so that only Catholic priests could administer sacraments to Catholics and only Brahmins perform certain ceremonial duties in Hindu temples).
Alan Cooper, how do we word it without raising the objection that the law might force churches to perform same-sex marriages and similar objections?
@Anat, I’m not quite sure how that objection would arise. I think that the performing of marriages by a church is not required for the legal recognition and registration of those marriages, and so that the refusal to consecrate a marriage within the religion would not provide any barrier to say a Brahmin and a Dalit getting legally married (or to any pair of same-sex people of Catholic persuasion to take your example). The fact that those people would not have the “blessing” of their religion is of no interest to me so long as that lack of blessing does not interfere with the provision of any non-religious services (such as renting a shared hotel room or being designated as mutual dependents for insurance purposes etc).