ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Separate = Unequal

Fortyfour years ago, in what is now seen as a landmark judgement in the establishment of civil rights in American society, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place in public education. Essentially, the court held, this violated the fourteenth amendment to the US Constitution, which holds that all persons are afforded equal protection under the law. Chief Justice Earl Warren, writing for the unanimous opinion of the nine-member court, declared separate facilities to be inherently unequal. Accordingly, segregated schooling was ordered to be discontinued.

In further rulings along the same lines, various American courts repeatedly held that citizens of all persuasions are guaranteed the same treatment under the laws of the land, and that many existing public facilities violated such guarantees. Increasingly, social life throughout this nation was re-organised to admit fuller expressions of the lives of diverse people, regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and sundry other things. Judgments that readily come to mind are the abolition of school prayer, the award of government contracts to minorities and women-run companies, and the Hawaii Supreme Court's recent decision on same-sex marriages, which is yet to be ratified by other states.

The over-riding philosophy in every instance of such affirmation of civil liberties has been the same -- that people of all stripes and colours are entitled to equal protection under the law. This principle has been so established in the nation's psyche that today, conservative Republicans openly claim that affirmative action (or reservation, as we know it) is inherently unconstitutional, and well-off minorities are under increasing pressure to demonstrate why they need such protection. With even those traditionally opposed to equality finding it useful, it is now evident that a foundation in oneness has been central to the fight against discrimination.

The obvious parallels between a race and morality-based social structure in the United States and a religion-based one in India make for some interesting analysis. Like in the America of the 1950s and 1960s, distinct identities as well as the separate provision of many public facilities in India, especially in education, government jobs and marriage, are mandated by government policies. The crucial difference is this -- whereas in America, the dispossessed and minorities sought the abolition of their separate status claiming it to be inherently flawed, their Indian counterparts have insisted that it is precisely this separateness that best serves them.

Is "separate but equal" any more defensible if disenfranchised groups want it?

For starters, permit me this one luxury -- to point out that the current arrangement, whatever your opinion of it, must be recognised to have failed. Hindutva is finding increasing acceptance among ever-larger sections of the population. At least in parts of the country, minorities are seen to be anti-Indian, sometimes bordering on terrorists. Despite the gains that lower castes have made through reservations, it is arguable whether the social moorings that hold up the caste system have been sufficiently tackled, especially in the vast rural north. We are still talking of private upper caste armies, of throwing Muslims out, and other expressions of long-simmering disputes.

Whatever be one's disagreement with alternatives, it is undeniable that the status quo has not served minorities and lower castes adequately. The elite within those groups has simply used the cover of separateness to beat down their brethren even further, and at the same time kept up the claim of suppression. In the case of minorities, this has provided a damaging backlash, and distinct identities have become the lightning rods of pro-Hindu opinion, as many millions of Indians are now inclined to accept the claim of Hindu groups that the constitutional provisions which support separateness exploit Hindu tolerance.

Worse still, it is quite clear that relying on the Constitution to preserve their separate identities is not something that minority leaders have engaged in good faith. After all, the very same constitution demands the abolition of separate civil laws, it is only the political inexpediency of such reform that has kept ruling parties from attempting to enact the proper legislation. And the very voices that rail against discrimination of various forms have been curiously silent in supporting the Uniform Civil Code. Why? Could it be that the divisions of our society provide fodder for those who would proclaim themselves to be champions of social justice, but are in reality charlatans of the first order?

Nor has there been any evidence of sufficient moral basis for such distinctions. A profiteering racket where positions in government-funded minority schools were being auctioned off is outside scrutiny, simply because some religious figurehead claims that any prosecution would be an interference in the civil rights guaranteed in the constitution. A chief minister replaces perfectly capable officers with ones from her own castes. Who in his right mind can defend such blatant crimes, or even generally immoral positions like multiple spouses, inadequate protection under alimony and inheritance laws, and such? Hanging on to such clearly flawed positions as fundamental to their separate identities can only hurt the disenfranchised. At best, it can empower a select few individuals within those groups, who normally do not suffer the consequences themselves.

Even conflicts which ought not to have a divisive edge to them turn needlessly difficult by separating our interests. The various disputes over river waters are clear indications of this. Farmers, households, industries, and such all need water, regardless of where they are located. A national council monitoring and facilitating water-use by various people could easily be set up independent of particular identities, and empowered to deal with all such disputes. Instead of maintaining such inclusive bodies as the ones with real power, we allow particular parties directly involved in the disputes to position themselves confronting each other along divisive lines, leading to intractable and sometimes violent situations.

The ideal E Pluribus Unum (out of many, one) which has served the American people so well over the past few decades illustrates the fallacies of our own policies starkly. If the identities and security of individuals are tied to their particular groupings of faith, caste or language, then it is inevitable that separateness must accompany that. If the Soligas of Karnataka and the Thakurs of UP should find common cause, it is natural to find that in dissolved identities. If instead it is their particular identities that support their political goals, then it is inevitable that those who do not share such identities are in the least indifferent to their plight, and at worst opposed to their rights.

Indeed, the American experience has shown that even in the face of mandated equality, discrimination is alive and well. Despite the decades of efforts by law enforcement agencies and anti-discrimination groups, it is not unusual to read of individuals who suffer injustices simply on account of their race, religion, gender, etc. These simply show that deep-rooted prejudices of the people are not easy to overcome. The progress that American society has made in alleviating the tears in its social fabric is astounding, but even such great strides have left much undone.

Imagine then, how much more difficult it must be to achieve equality in India, where separateness is still mandated. Mutual acceptance and respect of all communities can only stem from the willingness to see each other as essentially the same. The notion of oneness permits us to imagine ourselves in each other's shoes. On the other hand, insisting that separateness is essential to preserving minority or lower-caste identities is unlikely to ensure that equality is promoted alongside. Separateness, imagined to be the pillar of social reform, has clearly failed, for the castle of equality it is meant to hold up has crumbled.

We have spent far too much time disgracing those who say "saala, Muslim hai" and far too little understanding that what it really means is "he's not like me". We are outraged that some judge would perform rites to cleanse his chambers merely because some lower-caste person had occupied it previously, but in truth it is the perception that lower castes are unlike their upper-caste fellow citizens which permits such filthy expressions of faith or social organisation. Dividing our society along various fault lines and group loyalties does nothing to overcome such idiocy. Separate has always meant unequal.

How Readers responded to Ashwin Mahesh's recent columns

Ashwin Mahesh