6 - Confronting Marginalisation

In the previous chapter, we read about two different groups and their experiences of inequality and discrimination. Though powerless, such groups have fought, protested and struggled against being excluded or dominated by others. They have attempted to overcome their situation by adopting a range of strategies in their long history. Religious solace, armed struggle, self improvement and education, economic uplift – there appears to be no one way of doing things. In all cases, the choice of struggle has depended on the circumstances that the marginalised find themselves in.

In this chapter, we will read about some of the ways in which groups and individuals challenge existing inequalities. Adivasis, Dalits, Muslims, women and other marginal groups argue that simply by being citizens of a democratic country, they possess equal rights that must be respected. Many among them look up to the Constitution to address their concerns.

The Constitution, as you have learnt in the first chapter of this book, lays down the principles that make our society and polity democratic. They are defined in and through the list of Fundamental Rights that are an important part of the Constitution. These rights are available to all Indians equally. As far as the marginalised are concerned, they have drawn on these rights in two ways: first, by insisting on their Fundamental Rights, they have forced the government to recognise the injustice done to them. Second, they have insisted that the government enforce these laws.

Article 17 of the Constitution states that untouchability has been abolished – what this means is that no one can henceforth prevent Dalits from educating themselves, entering temples, using public facilities etc. It also means that it is wrong to practise untouchability and that this practice will not be tolerated by a democratic government. In fact, untouchability is a punishable crime now.

As part of their effort to implement the Constitution, both state and central governments create specific schemes for implementation in tribal areas or in areas that have a high Dalit population. For example, the government provides for free or subsidised hostels for students of Dalit and Adivasi communities so that they can avail of education facilities that may not be available in their localities.

One such law/policy is the reservation policy that today is both significant and highly contentious. The laws which reserve seats in education and government employment for Dalits and Adivasis are based on an important argument- that in a society like ours, where for centuries sections of the population have been denied opportunities to learn and to work in order to develop new skills or vocations, a democratic government needs to step in and assist these sections.

In addition to policies our country also has specific laws that guard against the discrimination and exploitation of marginalised communities. Let us read the following case-study, adapted from a real-life account, to understand how Dalits use the protection that laws provide.

The villagers of Jakmalgur are gearing up for a big festival. Once in five years, the local deity is honoured and priests from 20 neighbouring villages come for this five-day event. The ceremony begins with a member of the Dalit community being asked to wash the feet of all the priests and then bathing in the water used for this. Rathnam, however, refuses to perform the ritual, arguing that he has no faith in this practice.

Rathnam went to file a case in the local police station under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The case was picked up by the local media that led to many journalists visiting the village. Rathnam was written about as a symbol of Dalit action.

This Act was framed in 1989 in response to demands made by Dalits and others that the government must take seriously the ill treatment and humiliation Dalits and tribal groups face in an everyday sense. While such treatment had persisted for a long time, it had acquired a violent character in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Adivasi activists refer to the 1989 Act to defend their right to occupy land that was traditionally theirs. Activists have asked that those who have forcibly encroached upon tribal lands should be punished under this law.

As we can see, the existence of a right or a law or even a policy on paper does not mean that it exists in reality. People have had to constantly work on or make efforts to translate these into principles that guide the actions of their fellow citizens or even their leaders. The desire for equality, dignity and respect is not new.