Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
The terms Social Exclusion and Social Inclusion have been occurring
frequently in Western discourse in the last two or three decades.
Following the decline of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which upheld the
equality principle, social divisions solidified into a rigid caste system
characterized by social exclusion. From time to time, reformers reiterated
the equality principle, but the inheritors of the Vedic tradition, who
dominated the social establishment, were able to maintain their sway.
Successive rulers, including those of foreign origin, thought it prudent not to
interfere in the social system, unless there were compelling reasons to do so,
as in the case of practices like the sati.
Lately, there have emerged, all across the country, unmistakable signs of
deep resentment among the victims of social exclusion at the tardy progress
in the fulfilment of the constitutional promise. At some places the
resentment has developed into violent challenges. The state and the society
can ignore these signs only at their peril.
Why are we not able to get rid of this burden of the feudal past? Any inquiry
in this regard must begin with a close look at the nature of the Indian system
of social exclusion as well as character of the Indian state and the society.
Caste offers no exit option. The system has been a boon to some and a curse
to others. While the hierarchical system that arose in other lands divided
people into two broad categories, the privileged and the underprivileged, the
caste system provided for graded inequality, which divided the
underprivileged masses into numerous categories and subjected them to
varying degrees of exclusion.
This prevented the victims from coming together and making common
cause. Most victims also had the vicarious satisfaction that there were people
who were worse off than themselves.
Such a system cannot be dismantled by a stroke of the pen. It is as natural
for its beneficiaries to strive to hold on to the boon as it is for its victims to
struggle to shake off the curse.
The state, which has to implement the constitutional mandate of equality and
equal opportunity, is a colonial institution, which was created in the feudal
era and has a record of safeguarding the interests of the privileged sections.
The inheritors of the Vedic tradition were able to maintain their supremacy
in the limbs of the state even after Independence by virtue of the advantages
which the caste system had bestowed on them for centuries.
As many as 86.70% of those recruited between 1947 and 1956 and 88.45%
of those recruited between 1957 and 1963 were Hindus. While these figures
may suggest that Hindus, who constituted 84% of the population, received
adequate representation, there is reason to suspect that those at the higher
end of the social hierarchy appropriated the jobs at stake.
One reason for the tardy progress is the state’s tendency to continue in its
state of rest (or uniform motion) unless compelled by forces acting upon it.
When it is compelled to act, the state limits its response to the very
minimum required to buy peace and returns to the state of rest (or uniform
motion) at the earliest. The lackadaisical approach to the Mandal
Commission’s report is a classic example of this.
The Constitution accords primacy to social justice. This is evident from the
way Justice, social, economic and political has been put in, ahead of
Equality, Fraternity and Liberty, while enumerating the nation’s objectives
in the Preamble.
The Judiciary has a fair record in the dispensation of political justice. In the
matter of economic justice, its record is less lustrous, and in the matter of
social justice even less so. A rich and powerful litigant can get judges to
meet at night to dispense justice. That privilege is not available to a Dalit.
Land reform benefited some people at the lower levels too. They were
people whom the Establishment was ready to accommodate. They did not
include the Dalits, who were landless farm workers. They remain landless to
this day. With farms disappearing, they are losing their means of livelihood.
That is why they are crying for land to till.
Some among Kerala’s Dalits have found their way into the mainstream
through education. When the nation was ready to accept a Dalit as President,
this state supplied an eminently qualified candidate. Again, it was this state
that provided the first Dalit Chief Justice of India.
Dalit columnist Chandrabhan Prasad pointed out a few years ago that
landlessness among farm workers in Kerala was higher than in Uttar
Pradesh. According to the 1991 Census, which he cited, 53.79% of Dalit and
55.47% of Adivasi farm workers in the state were landless. The national
average was 49.6% for Dalits and 32.99% for Adivasis. In Uttar Pradesh,
only 38.79% of Dalits were landless. (Adivasis form only a negligible 0.1%
of the state’s population).
Affirmative action is now limited to the state sector. There, too, it does not
extend to some important areas like the Judiciary and the Armed Forces. Is it
any wonder that the judges of the Supreme Court are overly fond of Manu,
the mythical law-giver?
All this certainly did not make the Yagnavalkya Code very modern. As
Jayaswal puts it, “Yagnavalkya with his progressive tendency still retains
orthodox conservatism.” He avers Yagnavalkya’s Code may be taken to
have repealed and replaced Manu’s Code throughout the land of Aryan
civilization.
Yet it is by Manu, and not by Yagnavalkya, that the votaries of Hindutva
swear. The reason is simple. Manu offers the best chance of preserving their
privileged position.
Why do Supreme Court judges invoke Manu’s name more often than that of
Yagnavalkya, whose code stands closer to the Constitution that they are
committed to uphold than to Manu’s?
We have to turn to history for the answer to this question. Faced with a spate
of litigation involving local people, Warren Hastings set up committees to
help the English East India Company with Hindu Law and Mohammedan
Law. The experts on Hindu Law that he found in Bengal were all followers
of the Vedic tradition. To them Manu’s word was law.
The way Manu overcame Yagnavalkya and holds sway over the Hindu
establishment to this day deserves to be noted. It illustrates how the
overwhelming desire to perpetuate their privileges finds expression even in
the modern period.
Under the impact of globalization, the role of the state is dwindling. As the
state shrinks in size, the area open to the socially excluded will also shrink.
It is, therefore, necessary to open up new avenues for them.
Time is running out. So far the movements of the socially excluded to assert
their rights of equality and equal opportunity have, by and large, remained
within constitutional limits. If the upholders of the status quo fail to change
their mind-set and confront the problem of social exclusion truthfully, the
challenge may increasingly assume violent proportions.