A thought provoking article that I read and wanted to share with everyone here:
The National Council of Applied Economic Research (NCAER) came out with a large survey about caste and untouchability in India, which shows a few surprising and a few unsurprising things, the boldest assertion being that 27% Indians surveyed admited to practising untouchability.
To the question "Will you let a Scheduled Caste person enter your kitchen and use your utensils?", Braahmans from the Hindi-speaking states were the most likely to say "No" - 52%. What really threw me off were these figures for the same question:
1. OBC (33%) > forward castes (24%)
2. 15% SCs and 22% STs replied "No".
3. Sikhs (23%) and Muslims (18%) too replied "No"
To the question "Will you let a Scheduled Caste person enter your kitchen and use your utensils?", Braahmans from the Hindi-speaking states were the most likely to say "No" - 52%. What really threw me off were these figures for the same question:
1. OBC (33%) > forward castes (24%)
2. 15% SCs and 22% STs replied "No".
3. Sikhs (23%) and Muslims (18%) too replied "No"
It makes me wonder -
1. Should the survey have asked more probing questions: would the same group of people allow a Braahman to enter their kitchen and touch their utensils?
2. Obviously being a Hindi speaker does not cause casteist attitudes: it is merely correlated with the underlying causal factor. Is it education? Urbanization? The penetration of English and "western culture" (which has no inkling of case purity)?
3. Why on earth are OBCs more caste-oppressive than forward castes I cannot even being to reason that out.
4. SCs/STs discriminate against each other and against themselves _/\_ However, it makes an important point that caste is not a monolithic entity, and OBCs/STs/SCs must themselves be liable to get prosecuted under laws against caste-based discrinimation.
5. Islam and Sikhism are founded on notions of in-group brotherhood. Why are they discriminating on the basis of caste, then? Why do they even recognize caste? To me, it means that caste is not irrevocably associated with Hinduism, and is more a function of profession.
1. Should the survey have asked more probing questions: would the same group of people allow a Braahman to enter their kitchen and touch their utensils?
2. Obviously being a Hindi speaker does not cause casteist attitudes: it is merely correlated with the underlying causal factor. Is it education? Urbanization? The penetration of English and "western culture" (which has no inkling of case purity)?
3. Why on earth are OBCs more caste-oppressive than forward castes I cannot even being to reason that out.
4. SCs/STs discriminate against each other and against themselves _/\_ However, it makes an important point that caste is not a monolithic entity, and OBCs/STs/SCs must themselves be liable to get prosecuted under laws against caste-based discrinimation.
5. Islam and Sikhism are founded on notions of in-group brotherhood. Why are they discriminating on the basis of caste, then? Why do they even recognize caste? To me, it means that caste is not irrevocably associated with Hinduism, and is more a function of profession.
However, let us be happy that three out of four Indians do not practise untouchability in any form today I hope in a couple of generations, this blot on humanity will entirely disappear
(Image via Indian Express)
No comments:
Post a Comment