Deconstructing Racism and Regionalism in India

Racial Thinking

The Hindu

India is a country with diverse regions, languages, castes, religions and races. As a nation, India has been in the forefront for propagating values like ‘unity in diversity’ and pride in multiculturalism, both in the national and international forums.  India’s contribution to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa can never be forgotten. But in practice, Indians have failed to accept and respect its heterogeneity resulting in the social exclusion of ‘others’. This social exclusion is often the result of discrimination based on race or differences based on physical attributes such as colour of the skin, facial structures etc.

Though racial discrimination is prohibited by law and may not be practised at the institutional level, but its effects in everyday life are regularly experienced by people from ‘other’ ethnic groups who live in a different geographical or social landscape. For example, there is an anti-Bihari sentiment across the country, a South Indian is called “Madrasi” and a person from North East is called ‘chinki’. These are just few of the many cases. There is also a never ending prejudice against black or dark-skin, always giving preference to a fair-skinned person, in India.

To exclude racism, various groups and experts have demanded the enforcement of an exclusive anti-racism law. However this demand is much in debate as the other side of the argument is that racism is a social problem that exists in the minds and attitudes which cannot be addressed unless the minds of the people are connected through integration and promotion of cultures of other ethnic groups.

Injustice inflicted by racism

Indians often see themselves as victims of racism, inflicted particularly by the West. However time and again, Indians have themselves been perpetrators of race based violence towards others whom they consider as inferior.

State of North Easterners in Metro Cities

Death of a 19 year old student Nido Tania; physical assault of an engineering student in Bangalore and attack on two youths by few locals in Gurgaon are still fresh in our memory. Though these are three different tragedies, what is common to all these incidences is the shameful fact that these are racist crimes committed against the North East people in mainland India.

According to a police record, the national capital has witnessed a rise in racial crimes against people from the North Eastern Region (NER). Out of 847 phone calls this year (till mid November), the police received 650 calls concerning racial discrimination against the people from NER.  The Bezbaruah Committee that was set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Bezbaruah to look into the racial issues faced by the North Easterners, highlights that over two lakh people have migrated to Delhi from North Eastern states between 2005 and 2013 and about 86% of them have faced some form of racial discrimination.

Anti-Bihari sentiment

There have been several racial attacks against people from Bihar who migrated to other parts of India mainly for employment. However they have been subjected to severe social exclusion in other states. Between 2000 and 2003, anti-Bihari violence led to the deaths of upto 200 people and created 10,000 internal refugees (MS Academic, 2012).

In February 2008, migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar who settled in Mumbai for jobs were charged of being ‘infiltrators’ and accused of spoiling the Maharashtrian culture. Orchestrated riots and anti-migrant political campaigns routinely target migrants from other states and protest their presence in the city, even today.

Outsiders vs Tribals in North East

There have been series of massacres and bomb attacks on migrants from other states even in the North East. Discrimination and violence faced by ‘outsiders’ or ‘non-tribals’ in the North East have continued for a very long time, resulting in declining population of ‘non-tribals’ in Meghalaya, from 20% when the state was formed to below 10% (Tehelka).

An ‘outsider’ is called a ‘Dkhar’ in khasi, a pejorative term for people from other ethnic groups including Bengalis, Nepalis, and Biharis.

Targeting ‘Black’

African nationals are stereotyped as drug peddlers or sex workers in India. They are made victims of derogatory remarks like ‘negro’ or ‘kale’ (black), physically abused on the streets, and are also made victims of administrative (like police) apathy. The most recent demonstration of this is the brutal assault of African students in one of the metro stations of Delhi. These students protested being photographed by few local youths. In response, the African students were attacked by the locals and alleged of misbehaving with a woman, without any evidence. The victims sought police protection, but in vain.

Anti Racism Law in India: the debate

Need for an anti racism law

Article 15 of the Indian Constitution prohibits any race-based discrimination by the state. Such a fundamental right like Article 15 guarantees protection to victims of racial crimes committed by the state but fails to guarantee protection from private individuals. Additionally, anti-discrimination legislation also fails to acknowledge racism that is ‘invisible’ and executed through certain tone or gesture.

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is one of the foremost anti-discrimination legislations in India. Though the act protects significant number of persons from the North-East as majority belong to the Scheduled Tribes, it fails to protect non tribal from the region and other communities in India who are victims of xenophobia.

Recognising these gaps in the existing domestic laws, there have been demands for an anti-racism law from various groups and activists. However, the prospects of an anti racism law should be looked at holistically, such that it is able to tackle the issue and protect the interests of every vulnerable individual and group, both national and non-nationals, without being biased towards a particular group. One has to also see whether an exclusive law like this can eradicate every form of racism? Xenophobic exclusions and other forms of ethnicity-based discrimination are legally forbidden in the United States, yet it continues through indirect forms of expression, prevalent as ‘symbolic racism’ or reflected in socioeconomic inequalities like employment opportunities, homeownership, and income levels etc. For example, there is disparity in homeownership between African-Americans and the Whites, which is an indicator of the racial wealth gap, according to a recent study from Brandeis University.

The other side of the debate- need to strengthen existing legislations

Contrary to the advocates of anti-racism law in India, there are activists and groups who suggest correcting and strengthening existing legislations on anti discrimination. According to Mr. Bezbaruah, the chairperson of the Bezbaruah Committee, “We need a quicker solution because these crimes are increasing rapidly, when they should be decreasing.” In his views, the “introduction of fresh legislation would be lengthy; the government must consider swift reform of existing laws.”

The Bezbaruah committee recommended adding sections to India’s Penal Code, including making a “word, gesture or act intended to insult a member of a particular group or of any race, punishable with a maximum of three year jail sentence and a fine.” The other recommendation from the committee includes setting up designated courts to deal with racial conflicts, making Police more responsible and increasing role of media, NGOs, private sector in addressing the issue together. Promotion of other cultures and spreading awareness amongst people about various social groups and culture is necessary to curb the problem.

In a survey poll carried out by the Morung Express, a Nagaland based newspaper, majority of the people said an anti racism law is unlikely to protect the people of North East from racial discrimination. “Racism is a social problem and it can only be solved at the societal level……………Only a paradigm shift in societal attitude will minimise racial discrimination.”

Racism is a social problem

Racism originates from intolerance towards other cultures to faulty prejudices against them. Since the ethnic minority or an individual belong to a different social landscape, their behaviour and lifestyle is absolutely unknown to others who develop wrong perceptions about them. There is an utmost need to address racism not just through legal discourse but also through sensitising people about other ethnic groups and cultures. It is essential to deconstruct faulty perception and half truth that have been passed on through incorrect narratives.  Role of universities, media, sports and tourism become crucial in creating awareness and integrating people (both national and non-nationals) of different background.

Racism is India has a very long history; however there has been lack of voice against such injustice. We all have to accept our share of the responsibility in supporting racism either by pretending that it does not exist or by preferring to stay silent on the issue. There has to be zero tolerance towards racial discrimination not because it is against ‘our’ people but because it is against human dignity. Academics, thinkers, artists, writers, activists, journalists, professionals and students must challenge any form of discrimination through debates, discussions, writings, complains and protests.

Strengthening law enforcement agencies and institutional support also becomes significant.  Attitude of the police, who are often charged of harassing victims of racial slurs, needs to change. As also recommended by the Bezbaruah Committee, concerned state and central government bodies like state bhawans, should play a more proactive role in providing support to migrants. Fast track courts should be set up in States, exclusively to handle crimes committed on grounds of race.

Time to put an end to ‘Racism’

India's contribution to the struggle against apartheid in South Africa has been highly acknowledged globally. Under the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi and Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru, as a national ideology, India has shown an uncompromising attitude towards any form of institutional racism. However this pride and India’s own freedom struggle becomes meaningless as long as racism exists, even if at an individual level.

Racism is a form of exploitation and it will continue to exist as long as we deal with the problem half heartedly. Resorting to legalistic means cannot be ignored, but complete eradication of this problem is only possible when people develop solidarity towards their countrymen and also non-nationals, by destroying artificial differences on the grounds of culture, language, physical features and colour.

 

Abhishikta Roy

Is Abrogating Article 370 a Mistake?



Source: rediff.com

India is a country which embraced Federalism at the time of independence from Colonial rule with many nations existing within its ambit. A noteworthy instance in acknowledging the Federal polity in India is that of Jammu and Kashmir and Article 370 of the constitution which grants the state an autonomous status. Since the BJP-led government assumed office at the Centre in May 2014, the idea of abrogation of this article has been gaining steam. However, this move may jeopardize India’s already fragile relations with the state of Jammu and Kashmir and may lead to a forced Balkanisation of the state and defeat the idea of Cooperative Federalism with which article 370 was enacted.

On July 11, 2014, the Supreme Court of India dismissed a petition challenging the constitutional validity of Article 370. A bench of Chief Justice RM Lodha, Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman dismissed the plea by Kumari Vijayalakshmi Jha, who argued that the article was a temporary provision that lapsed with the dissolution of the state's constituent assembly in 1957.

However, the impact that this proposed move would have on the Indian Federal structure are lost in the din of political rhetoric. Why has this article been the most debated one among all the provisions of the Indian constitution? What is the BJP’s interest in abrogating it and what impact would this action have on not only the people of Jammu and Kashmir, but also India as a whole? These are some of the aspects explored in this essay.

Brief History

At the time of independence, J&K was a Muslim majority state with a Hindu ruler, Raja Hari Singh. The state was a bone of contention between then newly formed Pakistan and India. Being a Muslim state, Pakistan demanded that the state be a part of that country while upholding the ideals of secularism, India staked claim at it.

There was no provision in the British approved partition plan which stated upfront that the Hindu Princely state must accede to India and the Muslim states to Pakistan. The accession of Junagadh was an example of the ambiguity consequent to this. Jinnah accepted the accession of Junagadh to Pakistan in 1947 despite it being predominantly a Hindu province and later a people’s movement revoked that decision and Junagadh became a part of India.

Article 370 was a result of a refusal by the Hindu King Raja Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir to join either India or Pakistan after partition. In order to retain sovereignty of the state, despite Pakistan’s claim over it owing to a Muslim majority in line with the two-nation theory, led to the state’s monarch siding with the Indian side under special circumstances.  All the other princely states had chosen sides among the two countries, however, owing to a political movement under the leadership of Sheikh Abdullah (Father of Farooque Abdullah; later formed the National Conference), who was opposed to merging with Pakistan, J&K was granted a special status. In 1947, coming under attack from NWFP tribes, an Instrument of Accession was signed between Hari Singh and India which agreed upon maintaining the state’s sovereignty unlike other princely states. What this meant in effect was that other than specific matters including defence, communications and foreign policy, the Indian Parliament would have to seek permission from J&K State Assembly before implementing any laws in the state. The article was accepted in the Constituent Assembly in 1947 and was adopted in the Constitution in October 1949.

In 1949, PM Nehru asked Abdullah, who was appointed as the PM of J&K to prepare a draft of the article (then called Draft Article 306-A) to be appended to the Constitution in consultation with Dr. Ambedkar.  The then Law Minister Dr. Ambedkar had refused to draft the article on the grounds that while Abdullah wanted India to defend and develop Kashmir and that Kashmiris have equal rights all over India, the same rights must not apply to citizens from other parts of the country in Kashmir. He felt that it was a betrayal of the national interest. On his refusal, the article was eventually drafted by Gopalaswami Ayengar who was a minister without a portfolio in the first Cabinet of India and a former Diwan of Hari Singh. After being introduced in the Constituent Assembly, the draft Article 306-A faced extensive opposition, with only Mualana Azad standing in its favour. However, with Pandit Nehru’s backing, it was adopted and implemented, initially as a temporary arrangement, with hopes of a full integration in time to come.

The idea of a Plebiscite in J&K to uphold the people’s voice of the state in framing the state’s constitution was taken up briefly in the beginning, being discarded eventually in 1949. The Constituent Assembly of J&K which was to be consulted for any Central Law to be implemented in the state was constituted in 1951 and dissolved in 1957 and in the absence of such a body, abrogation of the article 370 is simply unconstitutional.

Government’s interest in revoking article 370

The BJP has indicated in the past that once in power, it would work on abrogating Article 370. Now that they have a government at the Centre, this seems like an impending reality. A junior Minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, Jitendra Singh recently said in a statement “We are in the process of repealing Article 370 and are in talks with the stakeholders,” starting fresh speculations on the issue. Also veteran BJP leader L K Advani, in his blog, called for the same in order to facilitate Kashmir’s further integration into the country.  This blog was a tribute to the founder of Jan Sangh, Shyama Prasad Mukherjee who died in a jail in J&K in 1953 while leading agitation against the article.

The reason for BJP to want the article gone is rooted in the history of how it came about. Being a Right-wing Hindu Nationalist Party, the BJP maintains that after the implementation of Article 370 in J&K, Sheikh Abdullah was appointed the Prime Minister of the state. He brought about reforms in the state, especially pertaining to land which adversely affected the Kashmiri Hindus (especially the upper caste Pandits) and led to them being relegated in their social standing. The land-owning Hindu community, as a consequence to the law limiting maximum land individual holding of 22.75 acres, lost their land during the redistribution process where any surplus land holdings was distributed among the peasants who worked on it, mostly Kashmiri Muslims. This led to the idea of land redistribution mistaken for communalism.

Moreover, since 1950, on several occasions, various provisions of Article 370 have been overruled by Constitutional orders. As it stands now, out of 395 total articles in the Indian Constitution, 135 are alm0st identical to that of the J&K Constitution and 260 articles have been applied to J&K making the article virtually irrelevant. Although, officially, J&K still enjoys an autonomous status, in reality, the state is farther away from autonomy now than it was at the time of independence. 

Unfortunately, the larger implications of scrapping this legislation would impact India’s relations with J&K, a state which agreed to be a part of the country on the sole condition of retaining its autonomy. Any attempts at abrogating this article, would therefore, fuel the already-existent mass resentment against the Centre. The article, as it is, hasn’t been followed through in entirety, however, scrapping it completely would lead to a further trust deficit in the people of the sate towards the Union. For the BJP too, to move past the labels of being a majority-appeasing, radical Hindu party, it is important to drop this issue. Moreover, PM Modi, in his Republic Day message this year as the Chief Minister of Gujarat had emphasized on the critical importance of a vibrant and functional federal structure in India as the Centre may not always be able to do justice to the potential and needs of various states. Repealing article 370 wouldn’t uphold the same vibrant and functional federal structure he spoke about.   

Abrogating the article a mistake

There is a widespread opposition in the state against speculations of the Centre abrogating article 370 with the current government being politically opposed by both, the separatists and the NC.

Article 370 grants the state of J&K special provisions with regards to its political structure. This article, according to the constitution, can only be abrogated or modified by the President with the nod from the state government and an approval by the state’s constituent assembly. By this definition, constitutionally, the article cannot be abrogated because J&K’s constituent assembly was dissolved in 1957 after the accession of the state was deemed complete and ceases to exist now.

Since 1956, when the Indian constitution was amended at Bakshi Ghulam Mohammad’s insistence, J&K has slowly but steadily been losing the powers it was guaranteed under section 370. In 1957, the Delhi Amendment was applied to the state, abolishing the Sadr-e-Riyasat and PM position in J&K, replacing them with Governor and CM. There started the complete dilution of autonomy.

The provisions of the article have time and again been ignored by respective central governments in India and consequently, it has already been diluted to an extent of only remaining as a symbolic right to the people of J&K. However, abrogating it completely would send out a message to the Kashmiri population that the Centre has failed to recognize the state’s autonomy which was the essential condition at the time of accession. In an environment of an already high level of distrust in Kashmiris towards the Indian state, this move could be seen as an attempt to completely disregard their voice in the constitutional process, that they have no right over their own political fate.

Essentially, the problem is in the perception of how the article is seen by the central government and the state. The state sees it as a constitutional right to autonomy and self governance while the Centre sees it as an extended temporary provision which has run its course.

In 1949, India had taken the matter to the UN and thereafter, several resolutions were passed relating to it, most of which concluded that bilateral negotiations between India and Pakistan would be the only way to solve this conundrum. Despite that, there hasn’t been much said about the issue by either of the countries openly in the recent times, although, tensions remain on the surface.

There have been attempts within India to solve the tensions between the Centre and the state leadership, Beg-Parthasarthy Accord of 1975 being one of them. In 2010 also, a special group headed by Justice Saghir was sent by then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to negotiate the terms of article 370 with the state. However, none of the efforts by any of the governments has yielded any concrete positive results.

If this article is abrogated, the next step would be the Balkanisation of the state into Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions at the behest of the Centre. History proves that such a move can have only a detrimental impact on the people of such states. States emerging from erstwhile Yugoslavia serve as a reminder to this grim reality.

Conclusion

The call for abrogation is also indicative of a complete misunderstanding of Indian federalism which is founded in the theory of unequal federalism. The constitution has abundant provisions providing special status to various other states too. Then there are the Fifth and the Sixth Schedule for the Tribal and Northeastern states. Would these be revoked too in time to come?  How then would the centre protect the rights of those who have neither sufficient representation nor, adequate opportunities for progress? This unequal but special provision guarantee these protections to the most marginalized and neglected communities in India, revoking their rights would result in a sure descent into a similar undemocratic structure which our founding fathers opposed and fought against. 

 

Medha Chaturvedi