Unmarriageability, subclassification and the persistence of caste— Part 1

This article, first of a two-part series, delves into how Unmarriageability is the spearhead against the Supreme Court's recent judgment that denied reservation for the 'creamy layer' belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 

—

UNMARRIAGEABILITY has the resistance to thwart anti-reservation outlooks and efforts. It is the spearhead against the recent judgment of the Supreme Court that removed the 'creamy layer' of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from the pool of reservation benefits.

To dispel any unnecessary misunderstandings, we must be mindful of two things: firstly, the purpose of any reservation policy is to ensure the representation of marginalised sections.

Therefore, though the term 'reservation' is used in common parlance, the appropriate usage reflecting its purpose would be 'representation'. For, 'reservation' is in fact a representation introduced against and to resist the centuries-old reservation system of caste determining who should belong to the privileged and the servile classes. 

However, only for the sake of convenience to converse with adversaries and not to disturb the ongoing reservation debate by introducing a new nomenclature, we will use the term 'reservation' hare, even though it is a misnomer.

Secondly, 'reservation' is often propagated in the mass media as a privilege given to marginalised communities. To have reservation (i.e., representation) is not a privilege but a right of minorities.

There exists a 'creamy layer' argument that the Unmarriageables (i.e., Scheduled Castes) who are economically well-off should be placed outside the purview of the reservation system, based on the misconception that reservation is a kind of poverty alleviation programme.

Despite the absence of a sound rationale, the majority opinion supporting the 'creamy layer' argument should not be ignored, as this would jeopardise the prospects of social justice in India.

The Unmarriageables should be wary of this development. Unlike a poverty alleviation policy which is based on economic backwardness, the presence of a reservation policy is purely based on social backwardness and the prevalence of social stigmas that deny and diminish the sanctity of the human personality of the Unmarriageables.

Also read: Weakest of the weak need constitutional protection, Punjab tells SC on Day 1 of subclassification within Scheduled Castes

Therefore, when these stigmas continue to prevail, it becomes crucial to safeguard the continuation of the reservation system. The necessity of the medicine should not be questioned until the disappearance of the disease. It is absurd to do so.

So, for how long should the reservation system continue? Till the social stigmas are eradicated, reservations will and should continue.

Forget not, we live in a society that has denied, since the Gandhian times, the existence of caste and its impact. Indian society tends to forget the challenges posed by the caste system, especially when it comes to the social issues it creates.

Considering these circumstances, it would be futile for the Unmarriageables to successfully campaign for the justifications behind reservation. While their calls for social justice can be heard, they may not resonate with Caste Hindus who may not fully understand the rationale behind reservation.

Therefore, rather than reiterating the principles of the reservation system, the Unmarriageables should couple the reservation system with the social stigmas and firmly reiterate the continuation of the reservation system till the social stigmas cease to exist.

The purpose of the reservation system is the removal of social inequality and there lies no reason for its removal until the attainment of social equality.

The Unmarriageables should strategically place the stigmas sustaining social inequality at the centre of the reservation debate. They should compel adversaries of reservation to address the social stigmas within Hindu society before discussing the question of reservation. This approach would undoubtedly fortify the reservation system.

During the election campaign at Ramdaspur, Jalandhar, Punjab on October 27, 1951, Dr Ambedkar touched upon the connection that exists between reservation and Untouchability.

He said: "The reservation of seats for the Scheduled Castes is for ten years only. I wanted this reservation [to] remain for such time as Untouchability is there, but the Congress leader, late Sardar Vallabhai Patel opposed me. So, the other persons who were there on the committee also had to support [the] Sardar because they belonged to his party. Therefore, we should try to send our true representatives to the assemblies, so that they may safeguard our rights and also try to secure this reservation after ten years."

Also read: A top-notch primer on reservations in India

It is high time to join the destiny of reservation with the sheer uncertainty in the abolition of Untouchability. In the absence of a definite endeavour to annihilate caste, any attempt to remove reservation should not see the light of day. Until the categories of Caste Hindus and the Unmarriageables exist, the Unmarriageables have an unquestionable social justification to retain reservation as a matter of right.

To maintain preciseness in the argument, allow me to briefly highlight who is a Caste Hindu followed by the realm covered by Untouchability. Clarity on both these terms is essential because most Hindus are not ready to accept that they are Caste Hindus, too, and there is no clarity on what constitutes Untouchability.

Defining a Caste Hindu is fairly easy. If one is concerned about or allows others to be concerned about the caste of their prospective spouse during marriage proposals, they are considered a Caste Hindu. This is the simple, short and foolproof definition of a Caste Hindu.

When unmarriageability is what can be called caste, any person who considers the members of other castes as Unmarriageables can only be a Caste Hindu. Therefore, the meaning of Caste Hindu is not limited to a person who practises Untouchability alone. This being so, to what extent does Untouchability extend itself?

Dr Ambedkar wrote, "At the outset, it is necessary to have a clear idea as to what is meant by Untouchability. On this point, there can be no difference of opinion. It will be agreed on all hands that what underlies Untouchability is the notion of defilement, pollution, contamination and the ways and means of getting rid of that defilement."

A liberal interpretation would allow us to accept that Untouchability, when expressed in the marital form, would include unmarriageability too. Unmarriageability is simply the notional defilement of Untouchability but in the marital form.

To take another perspective, when endogamy or conjugal inequality or unmarriageability are nothing but synonyms that express the very crux of caste, it would not be wrong to conclude that unmarriageability reiterates and reinforces the practice of Untouchability.

Unmarriageability is inseparable from Untouchability as a source or as a derivative. Therefore, as long as Untouchability exists, i.e., till the category of Caste Hindus and the stigma of unmarriageability persist, there is complete social justification for the continuation of reservation as a safeguard against social discrimination faced by the Unmarriageables.

Reservation serves as a safeguard against discrimination. Its relevance remains significant because discrimination is a serious issue. Therefore, understanding reservation and discrimination is crucial.

Also read: Sub-classification of Scheduled Castes: Homogeneity in forwardness, non-homogeneity in backwardness

An excerpt from Dr Ambedkar's Untouchables or The Children of India's Ghetto reads: "Government of the people and for the people cannot mean government for the Untouchables; equal opportunity for all cannot mean equal opportunity for the Untouchables; equal rights for all cannot mean equal rights for the Untouchables.

"All over the country, in every nook and corner, the Untouchable faces handicaps, suffers discrimination. The extent to which this is true is known only to the Untouchables who labour under the disadvantages.

"This discrimination is the strongest barrier against the Untouchables. It prevents them from rising out of it. It has made the life of the Untouchables one of the constant fears of one thing or another, of unemployment, assault, persecution, etc. It is a life of insecurity.

"There is another form of discrimination, which though subtle is nonetheless real. Under it, a systematic attempt will be made to lower the dignity and status of a meritorious Untouchable. A Hindu leader would be described merely as a great Indian leader. No one would describe him as the leader of Kashmiri Brahmin even though he be one. If a leader who happens to be an Untouchable is to be referred to he will be described as so and so, the leader of the Untouchables.

"A Hindu doctor would be described as a great Indian doctor. No one would describe him as an Iyengar even though he be one. If a doctor happens to be an Untouchable doctor, he would be referred to as so and so, the Untouchable doctor.

"A Hindu singer would be described as a great Indian singer. If the same person happens to be an Untouchable he would be described as an Untouchable singer. A Hindu wrestler would be described as a great Indian gymnast. If he happens to be an Untouchable he would be described as an Untouchable gymnast.

"This type of discrimination has its origin in the Hindu view that the Untouchables are an inferior people and, however qualified, their great men are only great among the Untouchables. They can never be greater nor even equal to the great men among the Hindus. This type of discrimination, though social in character, is no less galling than economic discrimination.

"Discrimination is merely another name for the absence of freedom. For [R.H.] Tawney says: 'There is no such thing as freedom in the market, divorced from the realities of a specific time and place. Whatever else it may or may not imply, it involves the power of choice between alternatives which is real, not merely nominal, between alternatives that exist in fact, not only on paper.

'It means, in short, the ability to do or refrain from doing definite things, at a definite moment, in definite circumstances, or it means nothing at all. Because a man is most a man when he thinks, wills and acts, freedom deserves the outline things, which poets have said about it; but, as a part of the prose of everyday life, it is quite practical and realistic. Every individual possesses certain requirements ranging from the material necessities of existence to the need to express himself in speech and writing, to share in the conduct of affairs of common interests, and to worship God in his own way or to refrain from worshipping him the satisfaction of which it is necessary to his welfare.

Also read: Caste is in the very air we breathe

'Reduced to its barest essential, his freedom consists in the opportunity secured by him, within the limits set by nature and the enjoyment of similar opportunities by his fellows, to take the action needed in order to ensure that these requirements are satisfied.'

"It is not my intention to add yet another catalogue of essential rights to the liberties of such lists, which already exist; but these are two observations, which apply to all of them. In the first place, if the rights are to be an effective guarantee of freedom, they must not be merely formed, like the right of all who can afford it to dine at the Ritz.

"They must be such that, whenever the occasion arises to exercise them, they can in fact be exercised. The rights to vote and to combine, if not wholly valueless, are obviously attenuated, when the use of the former means eviction and of the latter the sack; the right to the free choice of an occupation, if the expenses of entering a profession are prohibitive; the right to justice, if no poor man can pay for it; the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, if the environment is such as to ensure that a considerable proportion of those born will die within twelve months, and that the happiness investments of the remainder are a gambling stock.

"In the second place, the rights which are essential to freedom must be such as to secure the liberties of all, not merely of a minority. Some sage has remarked that marriage would not be regarded as a national institution if, while 5 percent of the population were polygamous, the majority passed their lives unsolved and unencumbered by husbands or wives. The same is true of freedom. Society in which some groups can do much what they please, while others can do little of what they ought, may have virtues of its own; but freedom is not one of them. 

"It is free in so far, and only in so far, as all the elements composing it are able in fact, and not merely in theory, to make the most of their powers, to grow to their full stature, to do what they conceive to be their duty, and since liberty should not be too austere to have their fling when they feel like it. Insofar as the opportunity to lead a life worthy of human beings is restricted to a minority, what is commonly described as freedom would more properly be called privilege.

"The discriminations against the Untouchables are merely the reflections of that deep and strong Hindu sentiment which is carried over in law and administration which justifies the making of distinctions between Hindus and Untouchables to the disadvantage of the Untouchables. Those discriminations have their roots in the fear of the Hindus that in a free field, the Untouchables may rise above the prescribed station in life and become a menace to the Hindu social order the cardinal principle of which is the maintenance of Hindu superiority and Hindu domination over the Untouchables. So long as the Hindu social order lasts, discriminations against the Untouchables continue to exist."

Also read: Scheduled Castes homogenous class for designation, not vocations: Kapil Sibal on Day 2 of the sub-classification hearings

Reservation should be understood as a social right available to the Unmarriageables to emancipate themselves from the discrimination imposed by Hindu society.

Unmarriageability is the sustaining source that ensures that discrimination among Hindus remains forever.

Only through the stigma of unmarriageability can Caste Hindus continue to be Caste Hindus and Unmarriageables remain as Unmarriageables. Untouchability as a form of discrimination reasons out the existence of civil disabilities only but unmarriageability touches the nucleus of the caste system.

Unmarriageability is the explanation for the root cause of social disabilities suffered by the Unmarriageables. The horror of dishonour killings rampant in this country is the stigma of unmarriageability, an extreme form of Untouchability.

This blatant truth of unmarriageability should not be ignored while dealing with reservation as reservation is not a mere right against discrimination.

Reservation is the social right of the Unmarriageables against the social discrimination they face. It is an attempt to tackle the Hindu society so that the next generation does not embrace the caste system as a social heritage with the same vigour as we embraced it.

One blindfold argument for the removal of reservation is based on the assumption that the Unmarriageables have achieved enough progress. Only the Caste Hindus hold such a view and it is arising out of their fear that they may lose their domination over the Unmarriageables.

Dialectically, there is no need to entertain the question about the progress made by the Unmarriageables because of reservation even if one fails to sense the maliciousness lying behind such a question.

The purpose of reservation, no doubt, is to emancipate Unmarriageables. But, it is only a safeguard and the removal of reservation has to be axiomatically anteceded by the annihilation of caste.

In the context of removing reservation, the key question that remains is whether caste has been completely annihilated or not. Whether Unmarriageables have progressed or not is irrelevant. If the answer is in the affirmative, it would be socially unjust to deprive Unmarriageables of their right to reservation.

Also read: A socio-legal reading of honour-based killings in India

What is the status of the annihilation of caste at present? The non-enforcement of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to hold the Caste Hindus accountable for the atrocities they commit is one instance to show how tough the job of annihilation of caste is.

The question of why even special laws become ineffective before the caste system of the Hindu society should not be ignored.

Dr Ambedkar wrote: "It must be admitted that the legal and the religious sanction were both powerful engines to keep caste going. But there is no doubt that the religious sanction was the primary sanction and caste has been maintained solely by the force of religious sanction. 

"This is clear from two circumstances. That the legal sanction was very seldom invoked will have to be admitted. That means that the maintenance of caste was secured by other means. Secondly, this legal sanction was in use only till 1850. It was lifted or rather done away with by the Caste Disabilities Removal Act passed in that year by the British government. Although the legal sanction is withdrawn, caste has gone on without abatement. That could not have happened if caste had not in the religious sanction another and more powerful sanction independent of the legal sanction.

That the religious sanction is the highest sanction which an institution or a belief can have to support and sustain it, is beyond question. Its power is boundless in its measure and tremendous in its curb. But it is very seldom understood how and whence this religious sanction gets this high-grade horsepower. To appreciate this it is necessary to note that the source of authority behind the religious sanction is two-fold.

"In the first place, what is religious is also social. To quote Prof. Durkheim:

'The really religious beliefs are always common to a determined group, which makes a profession of adhering to them and of practising the rites connected with them. They are not merely received individually by all the members of this group; they are something belonging to the group, and they make its unity. The individuals which compose it feel themselves united to each other by the simple fact that they have a common faith.'

"In the second place, what is religious is sacral. To quote Durkheim again: 'All known religious beliefs whether simple or complex, present one common characteristic; they presuppose a classification of all the things, real and ideal, of which men think, into two classes or, opposed groups, generally designated by two distinct terms- which are translated well enough by the words profane and sacred.

'In all the history of human thought, there exists no other example of two categories of things so profoundly differentiated or so radically opposed to one another. The traditional opposition of good and bad is nothing besides this; for the good and the bad are only two opposed species of the same class, namely morals, just as sickness and health are two different aspects of the same order of facts, life, while the sacred and the profane have always and everywhere been conceived by the human mind as two distinct classes, as two worlds between there is nothing in common.

Also read: Sub-categorisation within Backward Classes as per Indra Sawhney continues to be good in law: Supreme Court on Day 3

'Religious beliefs are the representations which express the nature of sacred things and the relations which they sustain, either with each other or with profane things (while) rites are the rules of conduct which prescribe how a man should comfort himself in the presence of these sacred objects.'

"From this, it will be clear that the social, religious and sacral beliefs are closely knit. Religious is social though all that is social is not religious. Sacral is social though all that is social is not sacral. On the other hand, the religious is both social and sacral.

"One source of authority behind the religious sanction comes from the fact, that is, religion is social and the religious beliefs are social beliefs. Religious beliefs are enforced on the individual by the group in the same manner and for the same reasons which leads it to enforce its other non-religious and purely social beliefs. 

"The object is to maintain the integrity of the group and as the integrity of the group is more closely bound up with its religious beliefs, the strictness and severity with which a group punishes the breach of a religious belief is usually greater than the degree of strictness and severity it employs for the chastisement of a person guilty of a breach of a non-religious belief. 

"Social force has an imperative authority before which the individual is often powerless. In the matter of a religious belief, the imperative authority of the social force is tempered as steel is by the feeling that it is a breach of a graver kind and gives religious sanction a far greater force than a purely social sanction has.

"The sacral source of the authority behind religious sanction comes primarily from the individual and only secondarily from the group. That is the noteworthy peculiarity of the social source of religious sanction. It prepares the individual to uphold religious beliefs. It dispenses with the necessity of the group using its social group.

"That is why the sacral source of its authority makes religious sanction of such high order as to supersede all other sanctions indeed to dispense with them. That is why the religious sanction alone becomes sufficient to maintain the integrity of religious beliefs which even time and circumstances have proved powerless to affect. The way this happens is easy to follow. The sacred inspires in the individual the sentiment of reverence and deference, which he certainly has not for the profane."

This excerpt explains why laws alone do not suffice to annihilate caste.

Also read: Does the tongue belong to the 'Thakur' as well? In solidarity with Manoj Jha

In such a troubling reality, the Unmarriageables have a just cause to link the fate of the reservation system with Indian society's responsibility to dishonour and disgrace the stigma of unmarriageability.

Such an intermeshing is crucial. Let me explain the why part of it. Religious sanction sustains caste and unmarriageability. Remember that what is religious is also social and sacred.

The belief in the caste system is a religious belief, that is, the practice of unmarriageability is clearly religious, social and sacral. To rip off from unmarriageability its religious sanction, to make it anti-social and to degrade it to profanity is the only way to annihilate caste.

The Unmarriageables are unable to coerce the Caste Hindus to do so. In fact, there lies no burden on the Unmarriageables to reform the Caste Hindus and cleanse the Hindu society. But there remains the survival responsibility on them to reiterate on the nexus between reservation and caste, in other words, reservation and unmarriageability.

This would inevitably offer two choices to the Caste Hindus, who are restless in their demand to remove reservation, with a compulsion to pick one: Either leave your notion of unmarriageability or leave your demand of removing reservation. For, reservation would continue to exist till you continue to practise unmarriageability. If you are so desperate to retain unmarriageability and thereby allow the caste system to continue, then do not bother and fret over the continuation of reservation.

Why should the Unmarriageables project unmarriageability to shield the continuation of reservation? The founding reason, as penned by Dr Ambedkar, is this: "Social evils can have no justification whatsoever in a civilised society. But nothing can be more odious and vile than that admitted social evils should be sought to be justified on the ground of religion.

"The Depressed Classes may not be able to overthrow inequities to which they are being subjected. But they have made up their mind not to tolerate a religion that will lend its support to the continuance of these inequities. If the Hindu religion is to be their religion then it must become a religion of social equality.

"The mere amendment of Hindu religious code by the mere inclusion in it of a provision to permit temple entry for all, cannot make it a religion of equality of social status. All that it can do is to recognise them as nationals and not aliens, if I may use these terms which have become so familiar in politics.

"But that cannot mean that they would thereby reach a position where they would be free and equal without being above or below anyone else, for the simple reason that the Hindu religion does not recognise the principle of equality of social status; on the other hand fosters inequality by insisting upon grading people as Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras which now stand towards one another in an ascending scale of reverence and descending scale of contempt.

Also read: Constitutional and legal implications of the Bihar caste survey

"If the Hindu religion is to be a religion of social equality then an amendment of its code to provide temple entry is not enough. What is required is to purge it of the doctrine of chaturvarnya. That is the root cause of all inequality and also the parent of the caste system and untouchability which are merely forms of inequality."

How can the doctrine of chaturvarnya— the parent of the caste system— be purged? The Hindu society is not interested in encouraging this question but a clear-cut answer has to be ascertained.

Grading people as Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras and the operation of ascending scale of reverence and descending scale of contempt would continue till Brahmins distinctively remain Brahmins, Kshatriyas distinctively remain Kshatriyas, Vaishyas distinctively remain Vaishyas and Shudras distinctively remain Shudras. Chaturvarnya is founded on the principle of distinctiveness of these four varnas.

Where do each of the segments of the chaturvarnyas get their distinctiveness from? A study of the chaturvarnya must in its turn start with a study of the ninetieth hymn of the tenth mandala of the Rigveda— a hymn, which is known by the famous name of Purusha Sukta:

"2. Purusha himself is this whole (universe), Whatever has been and whatever shall be. He is the Lord of immortality, since (or when) by food he expands.

11. When (the gods) divided Purusha, into how many parts did they cut him up? What was his mouth? What arms (had he)? What (two objects) are said (to have been) his thighs and feet?
12. The Brahmana was his mouth, the Rajanya was made his arms; the being called the Vaishya, he was his thighs; the Shudra sprang from his feet."

The Purusha Sukta mandala is the source of distinctiveness of each varna and the practice of unmarriageability sustains the distinctiveness of each of these varnas. Each varna maintains its distinctiveness because of the notion of unmarriageability it has over the other varnas.

Purge the practice of unmarriageability and the varnas would coalesce with each other eventually only to perish. Spare unmarriageability and the caste system would be spared. Annihilate unmarriageability and the caste system would be annihilated.

It is up to the Caste Hindus to decide what they want to do regarding the stigma of unmarriageability. They can continue to cherish it or reform themselves by perishing it.

But it must be made clear that till the stigma of unmarriageability exists to deny the equality of social status, reservation would continue to armour the Unmarriageables to claim equality in social status. 

When unmarriageability, through the matrimonial custom denies social equality to prevail among Hindus, reservation on the other hand, by improving the educational, economic and political status of the Unmarriageables tries to introduce social equality within the Hindu society.

Also read: BJP's Pasmanda outreach will remain a hollow gesture in absence of reservation benefits

Some might ask, how can a matrimonial custom be placed as a counter to justify reservation? My answer to this is, in the social sphere of a Hindu's life, if the institution of marriage can determine one's social status, thereby pronouncing them as a superior or inferior being, why cannot the educational, economic and political aspects of progress be the engine of change for the suppressed community to claim their social status?

When the marital aspects of social life create social calamities, why not the educational, economic and political aspects of the same social life be the solution to such calamities?

The Unmarriageables did not choose to resort to reservation. They were left with no option because of the rigid caste mindset of the Hindus. When the gates of social progress remained closed to the Unmarriageables in all directions, they had to find some sort of safeguard to their social life, which happened through reservation.

Reservation counters the deprivation of social equality maintained in connivance by Hindu society through unmarriageability but it is not a complete solution to the social inequalities prevailing within Hinduism.

Reservation is only an enabling measure for the Unmarriageables to better their lives educationally and economically. Political reservations available to them are only a representation arrangement to voice their concerns and interests amidst the Hindu communal majority.

Still, it would be absurd to conclude that any advancements made by the Unmarriageables in any sphere would result in an improvement in their social status until Caste Hindus cling to their idea of chaturvarnya.

As Ambedkar wrote, "Status is a dual matter, a matter inter se between two persons," in this case, the Caste Hindus and the Unmarriageables "and unless both move from their old position, there can be no change."

The Hindu social order, through unmarriageability, seals all possibilities for a person to change their status.

Dr B.R. Ambedkar's writings expel any doubts: "The chaturvarnya of the Brahmins was a fixed order never to be changed. Once a Brahmin, always a Brahmin. Once a Kshatriya, always a Kshatriya; once a Vaishya, always a Vaishya, and once a Shudra, always a Shudra.

"Society was based on status conferred upon an individual by the accident of his birth. Vice, however heinous, was no ground for degrading a man from his status, and virtue, however great, had no value to raise him above it. There was no room for worth nor for growth."

Here, what gathers my attention is that status is conferred upon an individual by the 'accident' of his birth. If we introspect further, what is the meaning of such an 'accident'? It implies the varna or specifically, the particular caste (jati) in which a person is born.

Are all these births accidents or the predetermined outcomes of the practice of unmarriageability? I would rather dissent with the former. The birth of a person in a varna or caste is a predetermined result of the endogamy that dictated the marriage of the person's parents.

Also read: The right to religion and the Shudra predicament

For instance, to be born as a Brahmin, both the parents must hail only from the Brahmin caste and not from any other caste, which is ensured by the custom of unmarriageability i.e., endogamy.

Therefore, one might inherit the status of their varna or caste at the time of their birth but everyone's status was actually pre-determined by the practice of unmarriageability by their parents through which the fusion of varna or caste in their bloodline is effectively prevented.

It is true that once a Brahmin, always a Brahmin. But the status succeeds to the next generation because the previous generation has imbibed unmarriageability. Therefore, it is the custom of unmarriageability that makes the status of a person static and unalterable.

In a society in which improving one's social status remains a herculean task, the presence of reservation becomes more pertinent. Till Hinduism becomes a religion of social equality and all the Hindus acquire equal social status, the relevancy and necessity of reservation are beyond the scope of any doubt.

The stigma of unmarriageability should become the spearhead of the Unmarriageables. It is the need of the hour, not only for the Unmarriageables but also for the Hindu society to disown the caste system.