The Kandhamal riot investigation has finally concluded that at least a lakh of people of the area can be included in the list of the accused. The police find that these numbers are too high and so they want to charge only a few hundred key instigators in the case. I wonder what the justice system is coming to but that’s not the point I want to make in this instance. This time it has more to do with the root cause of riots and the key to success of divisive forces.
Intellectuals say the clash in Kandhamal was just a fight between haves and have-nots.
“It is no more confined to a communal clash,” said Prof B Pathak, sociology professor of Utkal University.
Kandhas and Panas are the principal inhabitants of Kandhamal district which has a population of about 6.5 lakh. While most of the Kandhas are Hindus, many Panas are SCs who converted to Christianity. Nearly 60 per cent of the Kandhamal populations are Kandhas. After Christian missionaries came into the district, a lot of Pana SCs, who had not seen civilisation, came in contact with them. Later, they embraced Christianity. After getting education, many of them became successful in their lives and held top posts in bureaucracy and politics, etc.
The trouble started when those locals who converted to Christianity started demanding reservation status and tribal rights as enjoyed by Kandhas. This was vehemently opposed by the Kandhas.
There are so many issues here:
Conversion :
- Is conversion a problem?
- Why would anyone convert if they didn’t see any benefit in it?
- And if they see a benefit in conversion, why should there be any opposition to it?
- Is it no longer a personal choice?
- Is there such a thing as forced conversion?
- Can one be forced to change one’s belief and religion?
- Christian Missionaries do promote Christianity but at the same time they also do a lot of good for society and for their own people. If a person sees some benefit in opting for that way of life, can we deny him that choice?
- Would it not be better for those who are opposed to conversion, to follow the footsteps of these missionaries and help their own people achieve a better way of life. They would have no reason to look elsewhere in that case.
Reservation
- Is reservation still needed?
- Has it helped improve the social standing of the SCs STs and OBCs?
- If it has helped, then why do we still need reservations for them?
- And if it hasn’t made a difference in 60 years since independence, what makes us think that it will make a difference hereon?
- Is it time to try another approach?
1947 - India obtained Independence.
Dr. Ambedkar was appointed chairman of the drafting committee for Indian Constitution. The Indian constitution prohibits discrimination on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and place of birth..
While providing equality of opportunity for all citizens, the constitution contains special clauses "for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes". Separate constituencies were allocated to Scheduled Castes and Tribes to ensure their political representation for 10 years.(These were subsequently extended for every 10 years through constitutional amendments).
The only question here is: Are reservations in themselves not a form of discrimination?
Would it not be better if we removed the terms SC,ST, OBC, class, caste, tribe, etc. from our constitution? From our language, from our society? Would that not be a better solution than constantly debating the percentage of reservation to be allocated to a certain section of society? Let us not HAVE such sections of society.
What we are doing is the same as the divisive politics of the past few years. We are no better than the VHPs, RSSs or the Raj Thakereys of the world. Discrimination is the root cause of alienation and is at the heart of divisive politics.
There have been instances where, when Raj Thakerey was on his anti-north-indian tirade, that some south-indians said that he is doing the right thing. They felt safe because it was north-indians and not south-indians being targeted. There were Maharashtrians who said that it is right to protest against north-indians and I have heard people say that if you don’t like what we have to say, leave our state. This is also a battle of discrimination; the tug-of-war between the haves and have-nots.
Discrimination (or reservation - both seem to be one and the same) seems to have permeated all levels of society..
And it is not limited to words; it is reflected in our actions. We have discrimination:
- In housing societies when we say people from a certain community cannot live there.
- In housing societies when we say only people from a certain community can live there, others cannot.
- When we don’t allow bachelors to live as tenants (where are the poor people supposed to go if no one rents them a place? They get married simply to be able to rent a house and then we deplore the sorry state of the institution of marriage in our country and the increasing divorce rate. We are the ones responsible for it.).
- When corporate organizations have ‘optional holidays’ based on religion. When we say that a hindu can take leave for diwali and a muslim can take leave for Eid and a Christian can take leave on Christmas, we are further increasing the distance between communities. This is adding to the polarisation of people. Muslims huddling together, hindus huddling together; not understanding each other, becoming suspicious of the other. This was not the case when everyone had an opportunity to celebrate all festivals together.
We used to be a better country. We used to be a better people. Let us try and go back to the time when we lived together as one.
Let us identify the causes of discontent and disharmony and first weed them out of ourselves and then, try to weed them out of society.
Voltaire said - No snowflake in an avalanche ever feels responsible.
Let us not be that snowflake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that being responsible would be a good starting point and, as you have indicated, the causes of discontent and disharmony need to be weeded out of oneself, which in turn will help eradicate them from the society as ultimately people form the society.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is nothing new that politicians (our so called "leaders") have used discrimination to protect and gain support from their vote banks.
The point I am trying to get at is Motive, which comes from Objective (Mission/Goal). Leaders (politicians) unfortunately seem to be more interested in gaining power and remaining in power even if public welfare takes a back seat. Here, public welfare and societal development should be the prime objective. Instead, getting in power is driven more by vested interests (rather than societal development) seems to be the chief focus of political parties.
Hence, the objective of societal development needs to be approached from a different perspective and if having Reservations is not really working out then other ways of achieving this objective need to be implemented by our leaders.
Unfortunately, they seem to have a different agenda beneath the promises that we hear them make before every election.
Hi Rahul,
ReplyDeleteI agree that politicians have an agenda that does not include objectives of development and social welfare.. but we need to realise that this is because we have allowed them to divide us and sow the seeds of discrimination.
Let me give u an example.. politicians have vote banks based on caste, community, economic strata, etc. A labour oriented party caters to the labour class, another party favours the factory owners. Each party works to pave way to serve the ambitions and objectives, whether good or otherwise, of their own vote banks. This is where the problem lies.. and development takes a back-seat as no one is taking a holistic view.
It is our own selfish interests that are feeding this trend. If we all decide to stop thinking of our own selves and think about the country as a whole, change is bound to happen. The vote bank will then be a consolidated entity that will accept nothing short of national interest.
The politicians will, then, be forced to deliver.
I know this is an idealistic thought but let's dream big to make it a reality.. :-)
Cheers..
I read in the newspaper today, that a consumer court has passed a judgement in favour of allowing bachelors and foreigners to be given apartments on rent. They have rejected the claims of a housing society which had asked all tenants who were bachelors and foriegners to vacate the building. This was challenged by the landlord and the ruling was given in his favour.
ReplyDeleteThe court did not accept the generalisation made by the housing society that all bachelors and foreigners are a nuisance.
Well, that's one step in the right direction. I wonder why the supreme court upheld the stand of another housing society which did not allow a muslim to purchase a house in the said society as the members objected to it..