Impact of Dr Ambedkar’s Philosophy on International Activism of the Dalit Diaspora

Conventional/ Associational Organisations

Dalits started arriving in Canada since 1906 and faced various hardships in a racially and geographically hostile milieu (Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha, Vancouver). After half a century, they realised the need to organise independently and separately from the upper castes. Consequently, Khalsa Diwan Society celebrated the anniversary of Guru Ravidas at Port Alberni in 1962 for the first time. Thereafter, the Dr Ambedkar Memorial Association was established in 1979, Guru Ravidas Sabha in 1981 and Sri Guru Ravidas Community in 1986. Several Guru Ravidas Sabhas are active in organising and mobilising Dalits on the ideas of Dr Ambedkar. For instance, they gifted Ambedkar’s writings and photographs and installed his statues in some universities of Canada. Moreover, every year, they celebrate Ambedkar Jayanti (14 April) and commemorate his death anniversary (6 December). The other organisations are Maharishi Valmiki Sabha, Ambedkar International Mission (AIM), Indian Buddhist Society and International Bahujan Organisation (Kumar, 2013, pp. 243–245).

The presence and visibility of Dalits in the USA increased after the 1960s and continue to grow steadily. VISION (Volunteers in Service of India’s Poor and Neglected) was the first organisation founded in the US during the 1970s in New Jersey, and Ambedkar Literary Vision was formed in 1991 (Kumar, 2013, pp. 249–250). The Dalit diaspora helped in installing the bust of Dr Ambedkar at Columbia University, New York, in 1995. Other organisations in the US include the Ambedkar Association of North America, Boston Study Group, Dalit Solidarity and Guru Ravidassia gurudwaras. AIM opened its US chapter in 2003 in New York and New Jersey. It was established by the Ambedkarites in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, in 1994 and has functional units in Canada, France, UAE, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, Malaysia, Japan, Australia and other countries (http://ambedkarmission.org).

The Delhi Scheduled Castes Welfare Association established its branch in 1947 in Birmingham, UK. Later, Ad-Dharma Chamars established Ravidas Sabhas in 1956 in Birmingham and Wolverhampton to prove their ‘equal status and heritage’ to the Sikhs in Britain (Juergensmeyer, 1982). The Bhartiya Buddhist Cultural Association was established in 1961 at Birmingham. In 1962, Ambedkarite Buddhists formed the Indian Buddhist Society and the Indian Republican Group of Great Britain in 1965. The first Ravidas temple was opened in 1968 at Wolverhampton. The Dr Ambedkar Memorial Committee of Great Britain was established in 1969 at Wolverhampton, which propagated the Ambedkarite movement and championed the cause of Dalits. Buddhist Society was established in 1970, which successfully installed the portrait of Dr Ambedkar in India House, London. It also raised the problem of human rights violation of Buddhists and Dalits at the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) (Kumar, 2013, pp. 235–236).

Intermediate or Dualistic Organisations

Many conventional organisations based on particular identities also play an active role in the local politics of culture at various points of time. Thus, they play the dualistic role of association and advocacy on various issues concerning the community. In 1985, most of the organisations functioning in the name of Dr Ambedkar and Buddha unified and established FABO. It played a dynamic role in coordinating Dalits both in the UK and in India. It established the Ambedkar Centenary Celebrations Committee for the House of Commons in 1989. It helped in installing the statue of Dr Ambedkar at London School of Economics in 1996. The Dalit diaspora, along with social, religious and welfare organisations, initiated interactions with local universities to familiarise Britishers with the life and struggles of Dr Ambedkar and the predicament of Dalits in India (Kumar, 2013, p. 235). Similarly, such endeavours were undertaken by the Hindu Council UK, Hindu Federation of Britain and Buddhist and Dalit Christian organisations.

Activist/ Advocacy Organisations

The organisations highlighted here played a significant role in mobilising Dalits and actively participated in the two cases discussed below. Ambedkar Center for Justice and Peace (ACJP) was founded in 1991 as a global volunteer charity organisation based in the USA and Canada (http://www.acjpglobal.org). Its aim is to follow Dr Ambedkar’s path to liberate Dalits through social work and human rights education and to achieve dignity and contribute to the development of India. It participated in various meetings of different UN bodies, such as Treaty Body Committees, working groups under the Sub-Commission and World Conference on Human Rights, Social Summit, Women’s Rights, etc., and represented issues of caste discrimination.

The individuals and organisations agitating against caste discrimination established DSN UK in 1998, which was further expanded as International Dalit Solidarity Network (IDSN) in 2000 due to the growing global movement (https://idsn.org). It is ‘a network of international human rights groups, development agencies, national Dalit solidarity networks from Europe, and national platforms in caste-affected countries’. It raises awareness about caste discrimination, advocates for the human rights of Dalits and ensures redressal by the British Government, European Union (EU), UN, international development agencies and social groups. It is involved in research and collaborations with partners to develop concrete suggestions for change. It raises the issue of caste discrimination at various international forums in collaboration with other organisations. It published the report ‘No Escape: Caste Discrimination in UK’ in 2006 and submitted a reply to the Equalities Review for inclusion of caste as a ‘protected characteristic’ in Equality Act, 2010, of the UK (https://dsnuk.org).

Voice of Dalit International (VODI) was started in 1999 with the vision to ‘conscientize, sensitize, and motivate the Western public, the agents of development and human rights and other variety of target groups’ regarding poverty, discrimination and human rights violations and abuses faced by Dalits (https://vodintl.org.uk). It works locally, nationally and internationally among the marginalised and disadvantaged communities. It organised its first international conference in 2000 on Dalit Human Rights in London in collaboration with DSN and Ravidas, Valmiki, Ambedkarite Buddhists and Christian communities. The papers ‘Caste in Britain’ by Satpal Muman and ‘International Aid agencies Addressing Dalit Issues’ by Leo Bashyam were two significant contributions (VODI Report, 2000). In 2002, VODI organised another conference on ‘Dalits and International Development Aid’ in Birmingham, to highlight the destitute conditions and plight of Dalits to international aid agencies, and emphasised the presence of caste in Britain and its practice at various locations and situations. It has established many reading schools in London to improve literacy among Dalits. In 2010, Dalitaid India was initiated to provide aid to various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) working among Dalits in India.

After successful attempts to establish the fact of ‘Caste in Britain’, CasteWatchUK emerged out of VODI as a secular, non-denominational, independent and voluntary organisation in 2004 under the leadership of Satpal Muman (http://www.castewatchuk.org). It organised various seminars and conferences (2004, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2011) in collaboration with parliamentarians, human rights activists, lawyers, academicians, community leaders and individuals to raise the issue of caste discrimination in the UK and its incorporation into British law. To raise awareness, they participated in several live radio discussions on caste discrimination in Britain on Sangat Radio and BBC Network. Caste Away Arts is its artistic wing, which campaigns for equality, human rights and the breaking down of social barriers through theatre. It also produced a play, ‘The Fifth Cup’, based on true life experiences of caste discrimination.

ACDA was formed in 2008 as an independent voluntary organisation to promote an egalitarian society without discrimination (http://www.acdauk.org.uk). It is an ‘umbrella body for a number of groups and organisations who are working to eliminate Caste Discrimination’, and it aims to provide them strategic direction. In 2009, it published ‘Hidden Apartheid—Voice of the Community’, a study on caste discrimination conducted in collaboration with academicians to provide evidence for the purpose of enactment of the Equality Act, 2010. ACDA, along with various organisations, made a submission on caste-based discrimination to the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD; 79th session) to urge the UK government to bring Section 9(5)(a) of the Equality Act, 2010, into force. Moreover, it has strongly advocated for the inclusion of caste in the Equality Act and lobbied this through joint statements, submissions, petitions to the legislatures, prime ministers of the UK and UN agencies. CasteWatchUK and ACDA were specifically established for advocating inclusion of caste in the Equality Act, 2010, of the UK in collaboration with other organisations.

There are some interesting patterns observed in the organisations of the Dalit diaspora. They are established along caste and religious identity, including the sects, gurus and neo-Buddhists accompanied by secular and non-denominational values. They have their vision, aims and objectives in accordance with the ideas and philosophy of Dr Ambedkar. Moreover, their cultural festivals, celebrations and activities revolve around Dalit icons. They coordinate, network, educate and sensitise Dalits across the globe through modern means of ICTs. They play an important role in the integration of Dalits and are involved in various activities to support them through several means. They have a visible global presence and are at the forefront of internationalisation of caste discrimination for its resolution.

Caste Discrimination in International Forums

India emerged out of colonialism through its concerted independence movement based on the universal principles of equality, liberty, fraternity, human rights, anti-colonialism, anti-racism and so on. Independent India’s foreign policy used race to highlight its commitment to anti-imperialism; however, it also concealed its own fallacies of caste oppression and untouchability (Yengde, 2018). Ambedkar rejected the racial logic of caste differentiation, but he later sought to look at the similarity of their experiences and explored the avenues of convergence for their abolition and attainment of civil rights. His attempts at communication with DuBois, seeking the attention of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 1947 and 1949 about caste discrimination, violence, untouchability and segregation, are well known (Yengde, 2018). His attempts to internationalise caste discrimination and bring it on par with racism is now carried forward by Dalit organisations, which have raised the issue at various international human rights forums.

At the international level, caste was discussed for the first time in 1993 at the World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, and in 1995 during the World Summit on Social Development, Copenhagen, but there was scant familiarity with and understanding of caste-based and similar forms of discrimination. Thereafter, it was critically analysed for the first time in 1996 by UN CERD, which affirmed caste discrimination as a form of descent-based racial discrimination under the International Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD). Article 1(1) of ICERD defines racial discrimination as:

any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. (emphasis added) (General Assembly resolution 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965)

CERD strongly criticised caste practices in South Asia in its deliberations on descent-based discrimination. Several UN agencies, programmes and experts have emphasised that the word ‘descent’ used in the definition of ‘race’ incorporates caste. Thus, caste was introduced into the human rights discourse through ‘descent’, which acquired international attention and sparked debate.

Henceforth, UN agencies dealing with human rights have also addressed caste discrimination within the domain of ‘racial discrimination’. The Committee on Human Rights (CHR) and Civil and Political Rights (CPR) in 1997, Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Human Rights Commission (HRC) and UN Sub-Commission in 2000, and later the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), have highlighted caste discrimination as an impediment in the implementation of the treaties by India (IDSN, 2012). In 1999, Human Rights Watch published a report, Broken People (Narula, 1999), highlighting the severity of caste discrimination, and gave recommendations for ameliorating the conditions of Dalits in India. Interestingly, India has not objected to addressing or answering questions on caste discrimination as an impediment to the enjoyment of treaty rights before these bodies (Waughray, 2013). Consequently, caste discrimination has been recognised as a violation of international human rights law and as a form of ‘discrimination based on work and descent’ (DWD; Keane, 2007).

Therefore, Dalit activists changed the discourse and used the acceptable terminology and language within the existing UN framework to raise the problem of caste discrimination during the World Conference Against Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance (WCAR) in 2001 in Durban, South Africa (Hardtmann, 2009, p. 195). The objective of the conference was to ‘strengthen existing human rights mechanisms and develop practical action-oriented measures and strategies to combat contemporary forms of racism and intolerance’ (Pinto, 2001, p. 2817). Not only is caste prevalent in South Asia, but similar forms of discrimination are also found in Japan, Korea, Nigeria, some West African countries and their diasporas, which affect more than 260 million people globally (Pinto, 2002, p. 3988). Therefore, several international organisations across the globe working against caste discrimination collaborated for inclusion of caste as akin to racial discrimination, so that it could become an effective international instrument towards its eradication.

The effort of inclusion of caste as racial discrimination generated a lot of debate between activists, academicians and their supporters and opponents. The proponents considered it as ‘an opportunity to voice the realities of discrimination born out of their own life experiences to a world in search for solidarity’ (Macwan, 2001). The struggle was broad, united and focused on restructuring an unequal and hierarchical social order (Louis, 2001). It was an opportunity to revisit the categories ‘through which discrimination is experienced and understood—colour in the case of race, but touch in the case of caste’ and ‘embark on and sustain a thoroughgoing critique of caste discrimination’ (Gopal Guru in Natrajan & Greenough, 2009, p. 180). On the other hand, the opponents argued that race is a universal, fixed and immutable category that works in a bipolar dimension and that caste has always been local and fluid. Thus, to equate caste with race would be to push for polarisation between the Brahmans and others, which could undo all the progress of caste democracy in India (Gupta, 2001). Furthermore, it could undermine all the achievements of the century-old caste movement in India and was alleged to be a civil society endeavour with the conspicuous absence of political parties (Sheth, 2001).

Government of India (GoI) vehemently opposed the endeavour, arguing that caste was not within the ambit of racial discrimination and therefore out of the UN’s ambit; moreover, it was an internal matter and had been adequately addressed by the constitution and domestic laws (Sorabjee, 2001). On the other hand, India’s National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) supported it as an opportunity to deal with different forms of discrimination by the international community (NHRC, 2001). GoI was successful in its efforts to drop the word ‘caste’ from the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action (DDPA). However, Dalits were successful in incorporating a ‘work and descent’ provision advocating for ‘constitutional, legislative and administrative measures, including appropriate forms of affirmative action’ by all the concerned governments (DDPA, 2001). Nevertheless, due to the intense campaigning and visibility of the Dalit groups, the question of caste and similar forms of discrimination received enormous international attention and media publicity.

In 2002, CERD adopted UN General Recommendation 29 on descent-based discrimination, which made recommendations to states for effective implementation of their obligations. In 2004, the UN Sub-Commission appointed two Special Rapporteurs to prepare a set of draft principles and guidelines for the elimination of DWD, which was opposed by India. CHR prepared draft principles and guidelines (DPGs) as a ‘guiding framework’ for the elimination of DWD and set out the obligations of states and measures for eradication of discrimination and preservation of justice, and political, economic, social and educational rights. It was reiterated that DWD is prohibited by international human rights law and is a major obstacle to achieving development (Resolution 2005/109) (IDSN, 2012). Thereafter, IDSN, along with other organisations, advocated adoption of the DPGs by governments and communities as an innovative framework for eradication of caste- and descent-based discrimination (Pinto, 2002).

In 2009, the Durban Review Conference was convened in Geneva to evaluate the progress of the DDPA of WCAR, 2001 and work to achieve the goals through rejuvenated actions, initiatives and practical solutions. The accredited group of organisations submitted a joint resolution against caste-based discrimination, arguing that it was one of the most severe, continuous and extensive global human rights issues. It had been addressed by numerous human rights bodies; nonetheless, due to ‘its nature, severity and scope, should be deliberated not only in the Durban Review Conference but by all relevant UN human rights bodies’ (IDSN). Thus, they appealed for building practices to mitigate the causes and consequences of caste- and descent-based discrimination (IDSN, 2012). These attempts were again thwarted by GoI and upper-caste lobbies. In contrast, Navi Pillay, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, called for ‘Tearing Down the Wall of Caste’ (Pillay, 2009) and suggested the need for a new and independent international convention for caste (Crossette, 2009).

In 2011, during the ‘Decade of Dalit Rights UN’ conference, a consensus was arrived at that the way forward was to frame caste discrimination in the language of DWD as a global human rights concern, since the strategy of linking caste and race had reached ‘a dead-end’ (IDSN, 2011). Therefore, the Dalit diaspora strategically shifted to the DWD discourse so that India would accept the legitimacy of UN’s and ICERD’s involvement. However, IDSN, along with many other organisations and academicians, considers the efforts to equate caste with race as a debate on semantics (https://idsn.org). Nevertheless, states are obliged to uphold, safeguard and respect the rights of people marginalised due to descent and caste discrimination within the existing international human rights commitments. Caste discrimination and its associated disabilities persist in India despite various legal and political safeguards; thus, placing it within the UN framework obliges India to fulfil its constitutional and legislative obligations (Divakar & Mathew, 2001, p. 10; Thorat in Natrajan & Greenough, 2009, p. 156). Therefore, the attempt is to point out serious gaps in the implementation of the obligations at the international level and push for inclusive and effective implementation of additional measures for its annihilation.

Equality Act, 2010, of the UK

The Equality Act, 2010, was aimed to reorganise and restructure the existing discrimination laws in Britain. It substituted the preceding laws of discrimination and covers nine ‘protected characteristics’ ¹ in three domains: work, education and goods and services. It also has provisions for the enforcement of equality through the public sector equality duty and positive action (Metcalf & Rolfe, 2010). The lower-caste groups among the Indian diaspora pushed for the inclusion of caste as a protected characteristic, whereas upper-caste groups objected to this move during the enactment of the act. Though both groups denounced caste discrimination, they disagreed over its existence, practice and remedy; this brought the discussion regarding caste to the fore among the Indian diaspora.

The initial attempt to highlight the presence of caste discrimination in the UK was made by Satpal Muman (2000) in his paper ‘Caste in Britain’ during the conference organised by DSN in 2000. Later, DSN published ‘No Escape: Caste Discrimination in the UK’ in 2006 to record the presence and extent of caste discrimination (DSN UK, 2006). It found evidence of caste discrimination in employment, education and religious institutions, particularly in relation to access to temples, and suggested a few policy recommendations, along with the inclusion of caste discrimination in equality legislations in future.

In response, the Hindu Council UK (HCUK) published ‘The Caste System’ (Sharma, 2008), which emphasised the role of caste in association, community building, social interactions and personal choices, such as marriages, conversations and friendships. It suggested that caste was dying and that bringing it into legislations would reinforce caste propensities and divide the Hindu community in Britain. The Hindu Forum of Britain (HFB) dismissed caste-based insults, name calling and derogatory remarks in schools and universities as rare and ‘a lighter form of bullying’. Both HFB and HCUK linked efforts to outlaw caste discrimination as a Christian conspiracy to malign Hinduism and target lower castes for conversion. FABO published ‘The Evil of Caste’, highlighting the details of caste discrimination and its impact, in response to the HCUK report espousing the denial of the caste system and its effects (Chahal, 2008).

The British government was hesitant to include caste due to lack of evidence. Thus, ACDA (2009), in collaboration with academics, published a study, Hidden Apartheid—Voice of the Community. It reported widespread experiences of caste discrimination in spheres of activity covered by discrimination law and concern about lack of legislation. It confirmed that caste discrimination occurred in the workplace, in places of education and in the provision of services. The study received national and international publicity, but the government dismissed the evidence as anecdotal and incredible to justify amending the bill to add caste as a protected characteristic.

Moreover, the government argued caste discrimination was not a significant problem in Britain and was already covered by existing laws. Thus, its inclusion would be an unjustifiable extension of the list and might have an undesirable impact on the sociocultural cohesion of the communities. However, it recognised that the protected characteristics of race, religion and belief might not be sufficient to redress caste discrimination (if it existed; Waughray, 2013). Therefore, it inserted Section 9 through an amendment, which empowered a minister to ‘amend the section to provide for caste to be an aspect of race (and to provide for exceptions in the Act to apply or not to apply to caste)’ by order (Waughray, 2013). Simultaneously, the Government Equalities Office directed the NIESR to study the presence of caste discrimination in Britain and its ‘consequences for policy’.

The NIESR (2010) study concluded that the term ‘caste’ was used to denote different concepts, like varna, jati and biraderi. Caste awareness was strong among diasporas from the Indian subcontinent and extended beyond religion. The evidence suggested the presence of caste discrimination within the concerns of areas covered by the act and that it was practised by upper castes against the lower castes, showing no signs of change. Caste discrimination required caste-specific provisions, as it could not be adequately redressed within the ambit of religious discrimination in the act. Furthermore, caste discrimination and harassment were found to have a detrimental effect on the professional, educational, personal and social milieu of individuals. Therefore, the government could adopt educative or legislative approaches to mitigate caste discrimination and harassment. The legislative route would be to consider caste within racial discrimination as per the act and the extension of the criminal laws for its redressal. However, non-legislative approaches, which are effective in the public sector, fail in the private sector, as the authorities themselves are discriminating. Therefore, it would be problematic to trust Indians to mitigate caste discrimination and harassment themselves (Metcalf & Rolfe, 2010).

Despite NIESR’s recommendation of the legislative route, the government deferred it for the future based on development of the case law. Opportunities appeared at the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) in two cases, Begraj and Begraj v Heer Manak Solicitors and Others, 2011, and Naveed v Aslam, 2012, but both cases fell through (Waughray, 2013). However, the cases illustrated the gap in British discrimination law vis-à-vis caste. The next opportunity emerged in 2013, during the enactment of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act (ERRA). Under the act, the government was compulsorily required or duty-bound under Section 97 to ‘introduce a statutory prohibition of caste discrimination into British equality law by making “caste” an aspect of the protected characteristic of “race” in the Equality Act 2010, thus prohibiting caste discrimination as a subset of race discrimination’ (Dhanda et al., 2014a). Consequently, EHRC constituted a team of experts to review the existing socio-legal research on British equality law and caste and organise two supporting events (Dhanda, 2017).

The Socio-legal Review of Caste in Britain Report (Dhanda et al., 2014a) concludes that caste is a form of identity and social differentiation and involves inequality, which is acquired by birth and sustained by endogamy. Therefore, caste should be defined in terms of endogamy, inherited status and social stratification. In Britain, ‘caste is positively a form of association and social capital but negatively a form of social separation, distinction and ranking’ (pp. iii–iv). UN CERD concluded that inclusion of caste discrimination in the Equality Act was a treaty obligation. Caste is dynamic but has resilient features of hierarchy and conflict between caste groups, which can often be masked as religious conflict. The focus of the law is on caste discrimination, not caste per se, and has an educative and social-reform impact in the public and private realms (Dhanda et al., 2014a).

The Experts’ Seminar and Workshop assembled experts on caste and discrimination from law and the social sciences and stakeholder groups, respectively (Dhanda et al., 2014b). The Dalit groups emphasised that the institution of caste originated from Hindu scriptures and that it is hereditary and hierarchical in nature; they pointed out that unequal treatment, harassment, verbal abuse or discrimination based on caste are prevalent in the UK. However, Hindu organisations countered this argument, stating that it was confined only to personal preferences of friendship, marriage and social interaction. Similarly, Sikh groups too denied any presence of caste within Sikhism. However, testimonies show caste discrimination exists in schools, marriages, worship, employment, business and housing. Many participants saw the positive protective, preventative, educative and empowering effect of the legislation against caste discrimination. Despite different opinions, the events highlighted the significance of ‘dialogue’ and ‘produced a shared understanding that the point of legislation is not to criminalise or castigate any group or remove caste but to challenge the discrimination associated with it’ (Dhanda et al., 2014b).

The report recommended the addition of caste as a fifth subset of race in the act, which was however not implemented by the government. Instead, the government insisted on the development of the case law and relied on the judgement in P Tirkey v Mr and Mrs Chandhok, 2015. EAT considered the dehumanising caste practices in the case as racial discrimination and, thus, in violation of the Equality Act, but it confined its judgement to the case and did not establish it as precedent for inclusion of caste within the act (Dalwai, 2016); (Waughray, 2018).

The government decided to conduct the public consultation with both pro- and anti-caste legislation groups on caste and equality law in 2017 (28 March to 18 September) (Waughray, 2018). Based on consultations, it concluded against further legislation, citing an ‘extremely low’ number of cases of caste discrimination and calling caste ‘difficult to define’, although its existence had been reported by reports of the government-appointed NIESR and EHRC, civil society reports and various independent studies by experts. Instead, the government preferred to rely on developments in case law as an ‘appropriate and proportionate’ response (Pyper, 2018). The pro-legislation groups cited it as bowing down to the lobbying of upper-caste Hindus, who are the perpetrators of the caste discrimination. Now, it has become a long and arduous battle for legal recognition of caste in Britain within the ambit of the Equality Act (Purohit, 2018). However, the overall impact of these debates and activism among activists, academia and the government is a significant step forward in the struggle against caste discrimination and the efforts of the Dalit diaspora in expanding their ideas and activism widely.