“Caste”. A term that baffles many westerners in their attempts at understanding India’s complex social fabric. In India too, people do not really know much about the complicated, multi-layered, politically charged caste system. Except perhaps their own little microcosm of it. Indian politicians however are the masters of divide-and-rule to the extent that would put the British rulers of the past to shame. But that discourse is repetitive, frustrating and hackneyed and yet millions fall for it, come election time, time after time.
My friend Neha pointed out recently many South Indians have no understanding of the North Indian caste system; to which I responded that many North Indians do not even understand much about their own caste, leave alone knowing about South Indian castes. We are both aware that we are talking about the educated middle class, mostly urban people and not of the poor, the rural or the long-term excluded.
On the other hand I am the curious sort. I delve a lot into social narrative as well as snippets gathered from conversations with the older generations. For instance, a friend’s mother, while fixing said friend’s marriage, told me in great detail about the caste system operated within the Punjabi community. I was exhilarated and confused at the same time. There was all this fascinating, colourful richness of social fabric, with their own customs, their own food, their own traditions; and then there was the narrow-minded thinking about, for instance, how dhaai-ghariya Punjabis actively avoided marrying other sorts. Why, Ed Luce has written in his book In Spite Of The Gods, how India has upper caste and lower caste Muslims and Christians! So much for universality of brotherhood or similar values in these religions.
As I have written before, knowing is not the same as doing, although many confuse the two. Sometimes, however, knowing is essential to not doing certain things. Like discriminating. My daily decisions involve a brutal focus on merit to the exclusion of everything else about a person. Such cognitively conscious living can be tiring but who said living to your values was going to be easy?
Back to the caste system. The last census in India that included caste categorisation happened in 1931 when the British ruled India. And one is happening now. It is so big an endeavour that might make civil servants of tiny islands swoon and require smelling salts. But happening it is.
The inclusion of caste in the census is upsetting many, and providing countless opportunities for humour, for subversion and for earnestness to others. Quirky Indian, a pseudonymous blogger and writer of thoughtful and thought-provoking if satirical posts on India, has a long post here that captures how frustrated some feel. He says there are no Indians in India, just people who self-identify by caste, region, religion, language etc.
For a change, I disagree with the desperate hand-wringing. For several reasons.
In India, everyone is an Indian (barring of course, those who are not, and their numbers are growing as immigrant proessionals flock to India to work and live). But they do not have to say it or proclaim it loudly because it is visible. It is not dissimilar to that only people in Britain who say they are British are those who otherwise on visual inspection look like they are not. A vast majority otherwise self-identifies as Scottish, Irish, English, Cornish, Welsh, Geordie, Liverpudlian, Londoner, Cockney, working class etc. Americans do say they are Americans, but also that they are Noo-Yawkers, Bostonians, Californians, Texans etc comes up within moments of being in a conversation. A Belgian will quickly tell you, if you cannot judge from his or her name, whether he/ she is a Flemish-speaker or a French speaker, while conversing with you in fluent, accent-free English. The French are quick to point out if they are Parisians, and more often, not Parisians. The Swiss are loyal to their cantons, and the rivalries between Zuerchers, Baslers and buergers of other cantons is common knowledge.
Such granular self-identification is understandable. Because we are individuals and we do not want to be part of an invisible, homogeneous mass. Everywhere in life our success depends on how we stand out, while also fitting in in the broadest sense of the word.
There are upsides to a multi-layered identity too. Quirky Indian seems to think it makes life difficult in India. I lived and worked in 8 states in India, at a time when people did not have web access at home, and when I stuck out like a sore thumb in places like Calcutta and Bangalore. I have since lived in 2 other continents and 4 other countries.
What I have learnt is this:
The best thing about being A caste, speaking B/C/D/E languages, W race, X colour, from Y religion, from Z state or country is that one can invoke A, B, C, D, E, W, X, Y, Z in different situations and function, fit in and flourish. In other words, a multilayered identity enables one to fit in a range of circumstances and succeed in a whole bunch of situations. Not just in India but around the world.
The urban youth culture in India is homogenising faster than you can spell B-O-M-B-A-Y. Many remain terribly uncomfortable at the pace and the nature of change, as Rediff boards and lately comments on Aadisht Khanna’s latest post on Yahoo suggest. The comments are outrageous bordering on hilarious, and it is evident that the cojones of the most violent-speaking people won’t extend to the real world. Yet it is a sign of a country, a society in flux.
And as for the differences, there is a way to configure one’s life to make the best of them.
If you are amongst those who know little or nothing about the caste system, keep it that way! If you are aware of them, do not dwell on them. If each of us, instead of being upset, made small, everyday decisions that undermined caste/ language/ gender/ race/ colour/ region/ religion based differences, official categories will matter but only on paper.
Like everywhere else it is individual commitment to societal change that will lead to a critical mass that ensures change happens and sustains. Meanwhile, celebrate your own multi-layered identity. Therein lies the possibility of maximising one’s happiness from all that this world has to offer.
What of the census then?
Apropos of what Neha said, it is quite likely that the data that comes back is going to be too fragmented, too diverse to be meaningful or useful to anyone except the wiliest Indian politician. And if in the future, the electorate in the world’s largest democracy allows themselves to be exploited along caste lines, well, more fool them. In a democracy, we get the leaders we deserve. If it bothers us, it is up to us to take the initiative and work for change.
Starting at ignoring what divides us, and focusing on what unites us.
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
Shefaly,
Thanks for a very thought-provoking post. Let me at the outset clarify that my take on it is not so much about caste per se as it is about social pluralities in general, in the context of India in particular.
Your two sentences (provisionally leaving aside a debate on what grammatically constitutes a ‘sentence’)
spaced far apart, which grabbed my attention, were
If each of us, instead of being upset, made small, everyday decisions that undermined caste/ language/ gender/ race/ colour/ region/ religion based differences, official categories will matter but only on paper.
…and
Starting at ignoring what divides us, and focusing on what unites us.
What you say makes a lot of sense at one level; but at another, more insidious level, it amounts to just a lot of wishful thinking. As we all know, these differences crop up in subtle or not-so-subtle manner in almost all dimensions of life in India, from academic discourse to social dynamics to practical politics. There will always be people who insist that their version/ perception/ interpretation of what constitutes the norm is THE standard for the whole of India. It does not matter whether it is in the matter of religion, language, physiognomy, caste hierarchy … you name it.
The problem as I see it that in the sixty-odd years since independence we have witnessed a lot of attrition of the accommodation/ acceptance/ celebration of multiple identities and differences, and the emergence of high-handed, often brutal, homogenising tendencies.
As one who would like to see diversity flowering, and enriching our cultural universe, I feel that recording the parameters that form the basis of that diversity will make us more aware, informed and armed to counter the forces that are at work to crush it. To that extent, the decision to resume enumeration of caste, after a gap of 70 years during which there has been a sea-change in demographics, attitudes, and ground realities, may be a blessing in disguise.
@Vivek: Thanks for your thoughts. As you see the post began with “caste” and broadened into other characteristics we all use to discriminate and differentiate between people. I would very much like to believe that understanding of the many sources of diversity may be a blessing in disguise; after all, my own view on knowing-versus-doing is not far from it.
But I daresay, in the Indian context, the politics will become more bitter and divisive, enabled by faultily-collected and badly interpreted data. I am yet to find people who are well-informed about the nuance of the Indian caste-system so I find it hard to believe that the particular design element in the census, that aims to capture caste-related information, will be meaningful or relevant. This, like many other things about India, is an aspect I am happy to be proven badly wrong about. As it happens, we can only wait and watch.
Well said. I get the multi-layered identity argument. But, in all fairness, in 2010, which is more revealing of the true nature of a person – the fact that she’s a Brahmin, or the fact that she loves Celine Dion ?
In my dating days, I know where I would have drawn the line.
-Neo
@Neo Luckily for the readers of this blog, your dating days are behind you.
Shefaly,
Again I find myself in agreement with most of what you say, BUT…
…faultily-collected and badly interpreted data… .
Nothing new in that. Yet we do have talented statisticians who can correct the errors reinterpret the data collected. Post-independence censuses have at least taught us that.
@Vivek: I have to disagree with you there. It is a common problem in research and data gathering. Question design is an art; design and data analysis are iterative. Data collected by asking a leading or otherwise badly designed question will be meaningless never mind the interpretative skills of the statisticians. Some people have been sharing their experiences with the data collection, some amusing, some distressing. When the census taker cannot spell the birthplace of the respondent, state names are often taken down instead. People are making up names of religions. What’s the point of applying excellent analytical skills to such data? If you cannot trust the dataset, can you really trust the analytics? Should you?
The caste system is a remnant of a bygone era. The stratification of society is not a phenomenon unique to India – see the aristocracy and its carefully defined boundaries in the European feudal systems of past renown. What began as a quasi-genetic segregation (the blue-bloods) was slowly diluted by the grudging admission of the noveau-riche and ended in irrelevance. The last bastion of aristocratic political power in Europe is embodied by the British House of Lords, funnily enough, but even that’s on the way out, if the new government gets its way.
I am not that familiar with the Indian caste system, but I believe that any form of meritocracy would be preferable. If one is denied opportunities purely on caste grounds, that’s reason enough in my book to fast-track it towards oblivion.
As an aside, when asked for comment about the caste systems, your Captcha system quipped: “hopefully oxides”.
Shefaly:
Thank you for the comment on my blog, and for taking up the discussion here.
My post, contrary to what you seem to believe, is not about the census. Neither is it only about caste. It is about the politics of identity and why it is not just a fact of life, but why I think it will get worse. And analogous to knowing not being the same as doing, accepting something is not the same as being happy about it…even if that seems to be a sure path to some more neuroses.
Let me make this clarification: I do not think we are a homogeneous people. Far from it. Should we be? No, and I don’t recall saying otherwise in my post either. Yet somehow, that assumption has been made.
While it is perhaps good and fine being proud of one’s culture and heritage and all that these two terms encompass, there is a very fine line between some kind of healthy pride, and a parochialism which feeds on a sense of victimisation. And once you have crossed this line, identity quickly becomes a shroud in which we lay to rest accountability, responsibility and efficiency. That is what I have a problem with. That is what my post is about – and my problem with the “if-you-are-not-one-of-us-you-must-be-against-us” syndrome. I also know that there’s really nothing anyone can do about it. We are content to be played along these lines, one against the other, by both the people who rule us and those who aspire to.
I agree with you when you make the point that this question of identity is a human one. But I would like to point out that nowhere else, in current times, except perhaps in certain African countries, does this matter tend to degenerate into something quite as ugly as it does here. In this context, it is interesting you should bring in the example of ‘being Belgian’ vis-à-vis ‘being Walloon/Flemish’. If only two languages in an area 1/100th the size of India, with less than 1/100th the population of India (therefore with approximately the same density of population as India) can have such complex, fractious and unstable politics, it does not augur well for us. Because, while Belgium’s economy – much like India’s – also suffers from a pronounced regional imbalance, it has many other things going for it. At least Belgium – whether by fortuitous design or historical accident – already has its basics (education, infrastructure, health-care etc.) in place. It has a stable (and neutral) head of state, and at least, compared to India, political behaviour there is (largely?) civil, convention-driven and more faithful to the ideas of their constitution. Now instead of two languages and regions, think 20+. Add multiple castes. Add a half-dozen religions. Throw in the various armed insurgencies. Mix in the decline of the few institutions that were built. Throw out civility and niceties and bring in poverty. I don’t know about you, but suddenly the aggressive embracing of identities doesn’t much seem like a happy meal to me – regardless of the wonderful experiences you no doubt had, when you lived here very many years ago. And yes, regardless of how quickly urban youth in India can spell M-U-M-B-A-I.
On a slightly different note: you mention it is difficult to live to one’s values. Damn right. I try to do that, day in and day out, and I’m battle-weary. I seem to be living in a place which penalises, systematically and institutionally, those who try to live by the rules, and, perversely, rewards those who take short-cuts and circumvent the system. And before you say it, allow me to pre-empt you this time: I know that this, too, is a fact of life. And yet I keep doing what I do. As, I am sure, do many others.
Because, as you once said, the band must play on, right?
The Quirky Indian