AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

GUEST ARTICLE

        In his latest - and highly intellectual - book, India's Unending Journey, Mark Tully, a former Chief of Bureau in Delhi of the BBC, makes a somewhat debatable statement.

        According to Tully, who has spent over a quarter of a century in India, watching it from close quarters, the country's most remarkable virtue is “humility”. As he put it: “Acknowledging the role of fate in our lives, accepting that our knowledge will always be limited, seeking to discuss rather than dogmatize, appreciating that we need always to be examining ourselves if we are to maintain the desired balance - all these acts surely require humility”.

        How one wishes Tully is right in his estimation. What humility does the DMK show in its long-standing animus against the so-called 'upper castes'? What humility did the Gujjars show when they went on a rampage, destroying in the process, property worth Rs 12,000 crore in Rajasthan and elsewhere? What humility did either the Dera Sacha Sauda, or, for that matter, the Akal Thakt show, when they came into violent conflict? What humility did Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, West Bengal's Chief Minister show when Communist goons went into a violence mode at Nandigram and Singur? What humility does ULFA show when time and again it turns its guns against migrant Biharis whose only sin is that they are poor but hardworking? And what humility do the Maoists show when they back the massacre of policemen in Chattisgarh? Remember: they are all Indians; some of them must have seen Mahatma Gandhi in flesh and blood and listened to his philosophy of satyagraha and non-violence.

        In his book, Tully quotes Jonathan Sachs as saying that “the greatest single anti-dote to violence is conversation, speaking our fears, listening to the fears of others, and in that sharing of vulnerabilities discovering a genesis of hope”. He even quotes Amartya Sen as saying in his book The Argumentative Indian that “discussions and arguments are critically important for democracy and public reasoning” and “Voice is a crucial component of the pursuit of social justice”. But do any of our leaders take this seriously? In India everything is sought to be politicised. We behave like barbarians. Tully in speaking of “modern western tradition” points out that “whether it be in politics, economics, religion or any other sphere of human activity, the bandying of certainties frequently passes for discussion, and shouting from opposite corners is considered the way to conduct an argument”.

        There need not have been any violence either in Nandigram or Singur if, when disputes erupted, all political party leaders got together with the people of those villages to understand their heartaches. All that West Bengal's Governor, Gopal Krishna Gandhi could say was that he was “out-raged”. He should have immediately called for a dialogue. Where was Sonia Gandhi when the Dera leader Gurmit Ram Rahim Singh created entirely needless trouble in Punjab? Swami Agnivesh reportedly wrote to Dr Manmohan Singh, Home Minister Shivraj Patil and UPA chairman Sonia Gandhi herself, to intervene in the quarrel between two sects. Did any of them oblige? When violence occurs, leaders stay away, leaving the police to handle the situation.

        When, following partition, riots occurred in Delhi, Jawaharlal Nehru rushed to the scene of violence saying: “Kill me before you kill a Muslim”. He showed moral courage. Mahatma Gandhi did not stay in Delhi when murderous riots took place in Bihar. He went to Naokhali, walked barefoot from village to village, saw temples desecrated, hundreds of homes burnt down, saw the skulls and charred remains of people killed nut moved undeterred, unprotected, amidst the prevailing gloom. In the end, Gandhigiri prevailed.

        Gandhigiri is not just a fancy phrase bereft of all meaning. It is a vital force that can be applied to our day-to-day lives full of tension. Nobody denies that Gujjars feel neglected. This unfortunate country, rich in tradition is also notorious for its diversity. Forget the so-called “upper castes”. Brahmins in most States hardly constitute over seven per cent of the population. The so-called 'Lower Castes' outnumber the upper ones and among the lower castes there are further divisions and sub-divisions as noted by that distinguished sociologist M N Srinivas in his book: Caste: Its Twentieth Century Avatar, turning caste into a huge - if tragic - joke.

        There are, for instance, 622 tribes in different parts of the country and the term “Scheduled Tribes” was first used in the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution of India. According to Narayan, the backward population of Tamilnadu, for instance, is further divided into Backward and More Backward. Ten years ago, “compartmental reservation” prevailed in Tamilnadu by which 50 per cent jobs were reserved for Other Backward Classes ('Classes' mind, not 'castes') comprising 2021 “Communities” representing 67 per cent of the State's population.

        The Most Backward Section comprised of 107 communities amounting to 36 per cent of OBCs and the less Backward Section comprised of 94 communities. The whole concept is mind-boggling. What is even more confusing is the fact that a tribe may be recognised as ST in one State, but may be classified as SC or OBC just across the border in the neighbouring State! Presently there is even resentment of the fact that some of the SCs, OBCs and STs have become the “creamy layer” within their own groups and the question is asked whether, in the circumstances they should, in future, be entitled to use their caste or tribal association to further their status and economic muscle.

        According to M N Panini of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Scheduled Castes such as the Mahars of Maharashtra and the Chamars of Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, Scheduled Tribes such as the Mizos of Mizoram and the Meenas of Rajasthan “have become conspicuous in the government bureaucracy” and in the OBC category, “certain castes such as the Kurmis and Koeris of Bihar, the Okkaligas and the Lingayats of Karnataka, the Kanbi Marathas of Maharashtra, Vadugans, Veerakodi Vellalas, Gavaras, Thuluva Vellalas and Devangas of Tamilnadu, the Ezhavas of Kerala and such others have been able to utilise the reservation policies in their respective states to become significant class clusters in modern occupations and professions”.

        So do they need reservations? And if they don't get it, should they take to violence? Is there a Gandhian way out? This should be a matter of national - and not just government or party - concern and debate. It would be another national shame if caste is used by political parties to further their gains. The Congress has been doing this in the name of secularism. It seems determined to break up India along caste lines as well. We need a new approach to politics and social welfare that goes beyond reservations. Can't political parties take that up on a priority basis for some serious and meaningful conclusions? Should casteism and hate be the fallout of our ancient tradition which started well and only got debased over the centuries? Wake up, India.