Abstract
Social reality in India is pre-determined by a hierarchy of caste and class that denies rights to people living at the bottom of the Hindu social order. In this micro-regional study, we attempt to show how continuing caste rigidity hinders social interaction, which, in turn, strengthens social exclusion, thus preventing the growth and development of certain communities. We set out to examine and analyse how social interaction, and its effect on social exclusion, historically exists amongst the Dalits in Varanasi district of East Uttar Pradesh. The article, developed out of extensive empirical fieldwork and based on a primary data interview schedule, focused interviews and a quasi-participatory observation method, initially contextualises linkages between social interaction and social exclusion. Then, we observe the proximity and locations of different communities in the surveyed villages. Next, we examine the kinds of village activities the lower caste Dalits participate in or do not have access to, and the reasons for their non-participation. Finally, through some observations, we outline how equal access to services and society are imperative for democratic participation and the overall development of society.
Objective
The objective of this article is to examine and understand the magnitude of social interaction vis-à-vis social exclusion historically persisting amongst the Dalits in Varanasi district of East Uttar Pradesh. Developed out of empirical and intensive fieldwork, this article attempts to examine how continuing caste rigidity threatens as well as hinders social interaction, strengthening social exclusion in a micro-regional setting and causing macro-negative implications for societal development and the prospect of any social change.
Problematique of Social Interaction and Social Exclusion
Interaction is synthesis of reciprocity, exchange, barter and redistribution (Malinowski, 1922; Radcliffe-Brown, 1922 & Mauss, 1954), symbol (Levi-Strauss, 1973; Homans, 1961; Geertz, 1963; Blau, 1964; Leach, 1967 & Blumer, 1962), encounter (Goffman, 1959) and dialect (Marx & Engels, 1948). Interaction is sui generis (Durkheim, 1893), phenomenological (Schutz, 1972) and ethno-methodological (Garfinkel, 1967). It aligns with modern day communication (Mannheim, 1936; Giddens, 1976 & Habermas, 1963), and as a result, a social whole precedes the individual mind and exclusive binding (Ritzer & Goodman, 2003).
Likewise, interaction, in a holistic sense, is a mainstay and a continuous process of human life. It originates and gets fructified when human nature and culture interface organically in specific situations.
In anthro-sociological studies, social interaction is a mixture of reciprocity and market vicissitudes. In the context of global market forces, which have impacted all sectors society, polity and economy, interaction acquires multiple meanings and forms in numerous specificities. Interaction often becomes partial, pejorative, profit-driven and counterproductive. Conversely, modernity at large, inter-subjectivity and civil society also actively form and are associated with social interaction to meaningfully construct human identity. In a kind of ideal-typical social structure or a given specificity situation, interaction interestingly relies upon or absorbs existing values, norms and other types of social institutions. The nature, structure and feature of interaction in such cases is drawn and derived from historical human bondage, action and behaviour to regularly consolidate old and induct newness to sustain the social fabric. For example folkways, mores, customs and traditions, inter alia, are producers and product of social interaction. They form and propel interaction to even the extant level of society. Interface or interrelatedness of dominant values polarise social structure and order affecting enlarge interaction. The ‘social order’ is not part of the ‘nature of things’, and hence, it cannot be derived from the ‘law of nature’. In fact, ‘social order exists as a product of human activity as in the genesis (social order is a result of human activity) and existence (social order exists only and in so far as human activity continues to produce) it is a human product’ (Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 70). Social order, however, is uneven and hierarchical and does not spontaneously create uniform human nature through acts, symbols, values and ethics in a modern-contemporary, upheavalistic age, especially since it embodies a lot more beyond the social boundaries of caste, community and group. Social structure or order becomes potentially powerful in nurturing the social interaction process, and also places a constraint upon interaction.
Ironically, the present social order and emerging social interaction in their entirety often clash and co-exist to blend human relations and generate new dimensions of interactions—apparently widening cleavages among a cross-section of people and society at large in India. Social reality in India is either pre-guided or pre-determined by a caste, class, ethnic, religion and/or region-level hierarchy, giving rise to the denial of rights and duty to people living at the bottom of the Hindu social order. India’s dominant, Hindu-biased, rigid social structure, as it is proactive, succeeds in polarising social order and social reality, sharpening deprivation, subordination, and moreover, leading to social exclusion of a majority of people adding new meaning to the language of social interaction. Any organised protest in the form of a social movement or social pressure, if occurs at any point of time, gets systematically subdued and countermanded by the upper caste schema of social interaction. In fact, such a process of upper caste hegemony bifurcates the social relation and widens the base of social exclusion percolating downwards traumatically, getting consolidated and renewed in a few hands sans plausible interaction, if any. As a whole, and regardless of difference in interpretation, analysis and understanding, the social interaction process emerges to become a complex decipher vis-à-vis a powerful segregator by dominant castes in Indian society today.
To elaborate further, the present form of recurrent interaction and exclusion are the deliberate handiwork of so-called ritually superior castes that aim to camouflage public conscience and engender endless social exclusion. India’s historicity and continuing market-driven, upper-caste, elitist political culture conveniently use caste to its advantage, thus reducing social interaction. A coterie of such privileged people retaining power, domination and hegemony, monopolise interaction to a great extent. Correspondingly, among other human and social products, a privileged minority have the advantage of large public spaces to steer social interaction and social exclusion largely on the basis of their caste.
Normative absorptive facets of modernity, identity and socio-cultural and politicoeconomic institutions, sometimes dichotomous and sometimes co-terminus, reinforce interaction and exclusion to new heights. Identity is a product of political economy and systematically facilitates and appropriates the interaction process, the formation of social structure and the social reality. In an explicit sense, identity is designed and drawn out of caste, class, social status, race, sex and power in a process of interaction (Anderson, 1995). Similarly, a plethora of identities usher in a genesis of hierarchy and differentiation among individuals, and the interface of hierarchy and differentiation possibly sets out and generates enough possibility to marginalise and exclude some people from multiple social interactions. As a result, following a certain code of conduct or typical behaviour pattern, interaction narrows down to a specific situation and an identity circle of selected class, group or community people.
Paradoxically and/or concomitantly, social exclusion is the by-product and synthesis of the historico-material condition (Marx & Engels, 1948), authorship of expression (Lenoir, 1974), individual inability (Buvinic, Mazza & Deutsch, 2004), whole or partial process of exclusion (European Foundation) and internalisation of exclusion (Appasamy et al.; Pongpaichit et al.; Rodgers et al.). In the Indian context, social exclusion intriguingly revolves around diversified aspects—politico-economic, socio-cultural and spatio-temporal (Ambedkar, 2014; Sen, 2000; Thorat & Attewell, 2007; De Haan & Dubey, 2005; Nathan & Xaxa, 2012; Oommen, 2014). A lot of other intrinsic phenomena and governing principles overtly and covertly guide social exclusion to an unimaginable extent in India, even now. Besides, the Indian kind of differentiation, uniquely associated with deep-seated Hindu traditional values, believes in the ‘ordering’ of society which otherwise manoeuvres social exclusion. And, in this way, social exclusion becomes a multidimensional process of regressive social rupture that strategically detaches groups and individuals and institutions from social relations and prevents them from participating in the normal discourse or prescribed activities of the society they live in (Hilary, 2007, p. 15).
Ironically, in our opinion, one observes that even after several decades of independence, many people recognise that caste identity is still predominant in villages and is getting further strengthened for stratification and differentiation among people. Caste indeed percolates down more vigorously prevailing eventually in the everyday life of people, also guiding them to participate in community activities either through sanction or through prohibition. Hence, caste does not become fluid or flexible; rather, it becomes rigid, abhorring the social boundary of reciprocity and relationship per se.
Drawing data from an empirical situation, the article examines that caste alone actually and potentially influences and segregates people to a new plight of servitude, inhibits social change and becomes the harbinger of atrocity and taboo in India. This has particularly been observed in East Uttar Pradesh in activities such as education, market, Panchayat and lower courts. Caste Hindus therefore monopolise social interaction as well as the social order according to their convenience and hegemony. Against such a backdrop, and in the view of inherent contradiction within and outside individual–social capital, the article primarily studies and analyses interaction vis-à-vis the exclusion level of Dalits in East Uttar Pradesh.
The specific objectives of the article are (a) to identify the cause and obstacles that infringe upon the participation of Dalits in their neighbourhood and locality, (b) to assess the extent of Dalit ‘togetherness’ and closeness around a caste neighbourhood, (c) to find out the level of interaction and distance in a caste neighbourhood and problem of caste identity, (d) to explore the basic cause of differences and denial of access to services in the caste neighbourhood of a village, (f) to find out the extent of participation in community activities taking place in the neighbourhood and (g) to identify and ascertain activities that hinder Dalits to participate and be vocal in different caste-related functions taking place in a village, and on a regional level too. Through these specific objectives, the article tries to ascertain how caste and caste identity create differentiation, exclusion and block the ‘togetherness’ of people, thus hindering the plausibility of social change among different castes and communities of people.
Methodology
The main objective of the article is to understand the magnitude and servitude of social exclusion persisting amongst Dalits in Varanasi district in East Uttar Pradesh. The area, region, district, block and village selected were considered appropriate for the purposes of this study. Anthro-sociological and micro-empirical studies normatively facilitated the generation of qualitative data that helped in understanding unknown facts about caste, community, religion and region. The area we have chosen to study because trends of vivid caste polarisation and signs of interaction—exclusion tangle were highly prevalent. Two blocks, out of a total of eight blocks of Varanasi district, Kashi Vidyapeeth and Pindra, have been deliberately chosen for this study. The main criterion for the selection of this region is because it is geographically remote and also relatively backward. Although these blocks also possess certain similarities, their social interaction and exclusion make them stand apart. The study adopts a random survey of a total of 441 households from twelve villages as a sample size. The unit of sample is a village Dalit worker, labourer and marginal land tiller and a beneficiary of anti-poverty programmes. The following three inter-dependent aspects were the rationale of the sample: (a) a village with a high incidence and magnitude of poverty, (b) a village with a moderate incidence and magnitude of poverty and (c) a village with low incidence and magnitude of poverty. Data of both kinds are primarily used in the study to make the study qualitative. Primary data have been collected from the field using an interview schedule, focused interview and a quasi-participatory observation method. In this article, and ethnography of castes have been collected to the largest extent possible. Journals, periodicals, newspapers, books and lesser-known or rarely used archival data have also been collected to equip and justify secondary and documentary data. The beneficiary list has been drawn from two block offices of Varanasi district. From each block, six villages, putting two villages under each category of three types, were selected. Accordingly under two different blocks having of a total 312 villages; 12 villages are selected on basis of incidence of poverty that is high, medium and low. Data on households have been collected through an interview schedule. Diary and informal discussions methods have been used to supplement part of the data. The name of the village and frequency of respondents are presented in Table 1 to comprehend and develop qualitative data about the nature, character and feature of social interaction vis-à-vis social exclusion in the region. This has been done by understanding and involving an interactive process among high and low caste Dalits in the area.
Table 1 is self-explanatory and pinpoints the name of the blocks and villages, diversity composition, incidence and poverty magnitude indicating backwardness of Dalits, and also the location of Dalit villages with frequency (F) and percentage in the two blocks of Varanasi district.
Social Interaction and Exclusion: Dalits in East Uttar Pradesh
Exclusion in India revolves in and around societal interrelations and institutions to deliberately discriminate, isolate and deprive some people and groups determined along caste, ethnic, religion and regional lines. Because the social structure in India has a strong bearing upon people, it decides the nature and features of social interaction. To be specific, the varna–jati framework is embodied with other inherent kinds of deep-rooted values, guiding the so-called twice-born upper castes to nurture and uphold social exclusion in India in general. The pattern of interaction and social relationship is therefore gauged and guided by the purity and pollution of the Hindu social order. That is why Dr Ambedkar argued that the caste system did not result only in a ‘division of labour’, but it culminated in a ‘division of labourers’ (Ambedkar, 2002, p. 263). The former is the result of preference, choice and aptitude of an individual, while the latter is independent of individual’s will. Again, while the former is voluntary, the latter is not only obligatory, but is also coercive.
Sample Village, Respondent Numbers and Location of Dalits in the Village
The most important feature of caste, however, is that it provides for a regulatory mechanism to enforce social and economic organisation through the instruments of social ostracism (or social and economic penalty), reinforcing this further with justification and support from the philosophical elements present in the Hindu religion. Because the caste system, being fundamental, fixes the civil, cultural and economic rights of each caste, with restriction on change, it implies the forced exclusion of one caste from the rights of the other caste, or from undertaking the occupations of other castes. Exclusion and discrimination in civil, cultural and, particularly, economic sphere, such as occupation and labour employment, are therefore internal to the system and a necessary outcome of its governing principle. In a market economy framework, occupational immobility operates through restriction in various markets such as land, labour, credit and other services necessary for any economic activity. Labour, being an integral part of the production process of any economic activity obviously becomes part of market discrimination. This implies that the caste system involves negation of not only equality and freedom, but also of basic human rights, particularly of low-caste ‘untouchables’, thus becoming an impediment to individual and personal development. Hence, exclusion occurs regardless of the wishes of those excluded.
Hierarchy also decides the nature of caste identity, the level of exclusion of Dalits and one’s ascribed, as well as achieved, status in society. All these bring religious, economic and social sanctions, individually and collectively, in a group. Dominant caste Hindus exercise power to uphold their supremacy and ensure they remain unchallenged. The Dalit family and households, on the other hand, become the objects of social malaise and/or social exclusion. Therefore, ‘social exclusion’ in India is not a mere cosmetic value, but instead is a product of divisive political economy and unequal material condition. It has been cultivated in the public and private domain of people historically to give rise to exclusion, making it a social and also a physical element in India.
Social exclusion is regularly driven by physical exclusion in the village, household and groups of those who are considered to be inferior by birth (Saxena, 2013, p. 13).
One of the biggest consequences of social exclusion is the widespread inequality prevalent across India. In an analysis of rural household data from Bihar, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, it was found that less children from dalit and tribal groups go to school, even when household wealth, quality of schooling, parents’ education and motivation were controlled. (Dreze & Kingdon, 2001)
Social exclusion causes the impoverishment of a particular group of people, leading to high rates of poverty among affected caste, communities and groups of people. It hurts them materially—making them poor in terms of income, health or education—by denying them access to resource, market and/or public services. It also hurts them emotionally by shutting them out of the life of their community. Socially excluded people are often denied the opportunity available to others to increase their income and escape the cycle of poverty by the sheer strength of their own efforts. So, even though the national economy grows and general income levels rise, excluded people are left behind and make for an increasing proportion of those who remain in poverty. Poverty reduction policies often fail to reach them unless they are specifically designed to do so (DFID, 2005; Modi, 2015, p. 9).
It is clear that social exclusion is a multi-dimensional phenomenon that needs to be addressed urgently if any nation expects to have a just, fair, equitable and stable society. Social exclusion is not only about attitude but is deeply built in different facets of [the] social structure. Hence, a mere change in attitude may not necessarily eliminate social exclusion. [The] social structure of a society contributes to the formation of attitude and attitude, in turn, contributes to [the] maintenance of social structure. There is no easy way out of this vicious cycle. (Modi, 2015, p. 10)
This brief theoretical analysis, in a nutshell, exhibits how interaction and social exclusions are juxtaposed and yet stand apart. Both provide separate kinds of framework to analyse and understand society in India, especially in Varanasi district in East Uttar Pradesh.
In tune with this perspective, the following section has been developed to depict the levels of interaction and the closeness of Dalits in their societal milieu, and the problems of discrimination and exclusion they face in their daily lives.
Togetherness and Closeness of Dalits in a Caste Neighbourhood
Interaction and social exclusion are antithetical to each other. However, both provide separate kinds of framework to analyse and understand society in India, in general, and East Uttar Pradesh, in particular. It became quite appalling and alarming to see a trend where caste inversely becomes more rigid, adding an emphasis to social exclusion. Furthermore, the aggressive spread of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation has reinforced divisions in caste societies. Developments of this kind cannot alter the physical location of Dalit bastis/clusters in different parts of India which are typically excluded and isolated from high caste-inhabited villages.
The common problems facing Dalits can be seen in Table 1. Out of a total of twelve villages, nine villages represent Dalit bastis and their location in the south side of the village. The habitation for Dalits is deliberately earmarked in an undesired location or direction, so as to maintain a social distance from caste Hindus and their ‘sacred’ activities. This signifies a spatio-temporal and geographical social exclusion of Dalits. Upper caste Hindu believe that as winds do not normally blow from a southerly direction, they will not get polluted nor will the shadow of a Dalit household reach them if lower caste bastis are located in southern areas. Possibly, the Hindu Vastu Shastra (ancient science of architecture) also justifies this inauspicious location. So, caste, religion and beliefs of dominant Hindus decide on the location of Dalit habitations, and they segregate, isolate and impose constrictions, in whatever manner they like, according to their own convenience.
Further, dalits can be categorised as a different sociological category because of their historicity. That is because identity and exclusion starts from the locale of the village, where they are forcedly put on the southern side which is religiously considered inauspicious. This also reflects a geo-local kind of exclusion, which is there for all times to come unless they move outside their village to settle somewhere else. (Malik, 2015, p. 282)
Another notable cause of the geographical seclusion of Dalits is the Hindu social structure, primarily governed by the Purusartha or the Purusha-sukta and the Manusmirti, both of which represent the early textual traditions of Hinduism which treat Dalits as mlechha (outcastes). Dominant caste Hindus uphold their socio-cultural hegemony by segregating Dalit houses in the outskirts of their village. The Dalit bond of togetherness and the levels of social interaction with caste Hindus in their locality, village and neighbourhood are presented in Figure 1a.
Figure 1a reveals the experience, encounters and also the extent of the social interaction of Dalits in East Uttar Pradesh with other caste Hindu communities in and around their natal residence and neighbourhood. Out of a total of 441 respondents, 118 (26.8 per cent) said they maintained a complete distance, 117 Dalits (26.53 per cent) neither maintained a distance nor a closeness in their interpersonal relationship with upper caste Hindus and 206 (46.71 per cent) said they had maintained a closeness with each other. Hence, those who neither maintained a distance nor closeness, in a sociological sense, in fact, observed a distance. Therefore, these two variables are clubbed together to find out the magnitude of distance and difference. Consequently, it is evident that the majority of respondents (235, 53.28 per cent) maintained a distance and closeness in their neighbourhood according to each other’s perception of likeness and convenience, whereas lower caste Dalits did not have even a minimum level of interpersonal relationships with caste Hindus.
Likewise, when this set of data is analysed on the basis of a sample village (i.e., on the basis of the incidence of poverty in a selected village), it justifies ‘distance’ between Dalits in their neighbourhood (Figure 1b), but it also reflects that the distance between the upper and lower castes is higher in a village with a moderate incidence of poverty in comparison to a village with a higher and lower incidences of poverty. Therefore, it can be deduced that the notion of solidarity and closeness goes along with a class notion, and it is established at both higher and lower incidences of poverty. On the whole, differences exist on the basis of several overt and covert factors of which caste is the major determining factor governing the social exclusion of Dalits.
The respondents, when questioned, said: ‘The upper castes never allow people of the chhote biradiri (lower caste) into their neighbourhood and residential areas.’ Suma Chitnis, by referring to various autobiographies of Dalits, writes:
Speaking from his (their) own experience as well as the experience of others close to him, Kharat (an educated Mahar and Vice-Chancellor of a University) describes the fear, humiliation, despair, anger, shame, and sense of worthlessness that members of polluting castes feel at being considered a source of pollution. (Chitnis, 2011)
Based on what she saw in the eyes and body language of the members of upper castes with whom she interacted, she portrays the outrage, disgust and holy anger that the upper caste bears towards those who pollute them. She talks about a sense of sacrilege, desecration, defilement and violation that the upper castes experience when they are polluted, even if the pollution is purely accidental (Chitnis, 2011, pp. 202–03).
This view of Chitnis is further substantiated by referring to the replies of some respondents. ‘Food and water is served from a distance and not by the upper castes themselves, rather it is given by others.’ Furthermore, the reciprocity of interactions is reflected from another narrative: ‘If a lower caste member goes to the household of an upper caste person, food and drink are served separately.’ However, ‘when an upper caste member visits a lower caste residence they can’t imagine drinking water and eating food touched by them’. Likewise, Thorat (2008), writes: ‘Caste and untouchability and ethnicity-based exclusion reflect the inability of an individual and group like former untouchables, Adivasis and similar groups to interact freely and productively with others and to take part in the full economic, social and political life of a community.’
Differentiation in Levels of Caste Identity
Caste and its role in the dwelling locality of Dalits are ascertained and presented in Figure 2a.
Figure 2a depicts the frequency, distribution of respondents regarding their differentiation on the basis of caste in their neighbourhood. It shows that 230 respondents (52.15 per cent) were of the view that they liked to maintain a very distant relationship in their neighbourhood, 97 (22.00 per cent) neither maintained a distance nor exhibited closeness in their relationship and 104 (25.35 per cent) were of the view that they were somewhat close with each other. For a better understanding, those who were neither close nor maintained a distance, were actually put in the category of maintaining a distance. Thus, 327 respondents (74.14 per cent) maintained both physical and social distance with each other and Dalits, because of their caste identity.
The study of three different types of villages in Figure 2b suggested that distance was large irrespective of the incidence of poverty. However, in a comparative examination of villages with a low incidence of poverty, the distance was much greater than other two types of villages. Thus, distance can be said to be connected to economic prosperity.
Furthermore, to have an exact level and magnitude of distance and differentiation, a mean value was calculated and presented in Table 2. Out of the total of three villages, the mean value was 2.202, which implied strong rigidity and a magnitude of caste differentiation. Max Weber (1958) lays out the essential characteristic of caste, as opposed to affinity, and writes:
A status segregation that grows into caste differs in its structure from a mere ‘ethnic’ segregation; caste structure transforms horizontal and unconnected coexistence of ethnically segregated groups into a vertical social system of super-ordination and subordination….ethnic coexistence condition a mutual repulsion and disdain but allow each ethnic community to consider its own honour as the highest one; the caste structure brings out a social subordination and an acknowledgement of ‘more honour’ in favour of privileged caste and status group. (Desai & Dubey, 2011, p. 40; Gerth & Mills, 1946, p. 189)
The following is a view held by some respondents: ‘In shops where others take tea, snacks and water, we are not only not allowed to have water or snacks but we are abused openly and told to leave the place immediately.’ This remark exemplifies how caste identity plays a divisive role in the interpersonal relationship of people in a neighbourhood. It creates a difference among respondents since they usually deal with caste conservatism and commensality. Caste differentiations and manifestations vary from situation to situation and also from one sphere of activity to another. The ratio relating to caste difference can be viewed in Figure 3a.
Mean Difference of Caste in Neighbourhood
The chart depicts the frequency distribution of respondents on the basis of caste differences which creates problem among them. It can be seen that 302 (68.48 per cent) respondents agree that caste differences creates innumerable problems, 100 (22.68 per cent) do not agree that caste is the crux of the problem in a neighbourhood and 39 (8.84 per cent) view that differential treatment on the basis of caste sometimes creates problems in a neighbourhood.
Figure 3b reveals that a majority of respondents, that is, 302 (68.48 per cent), say that caste rigidity creates a lot of problem in their normal lives and in society, and is the cause of isolation, segregation, exclusion and deprivation. The village-wise analysis suggests that caste identity creates a problem irrespective of the incidence of poverty, but it is more significant in the middle incidence of poverty (Figure 3b). Oommen (2013, p. XII) writes: ‘Scheduled Castes are marginalised in multiple contexts and therefore cumulative injustice exist in their cases.’ In the same context, Chitnis (2011) writes:
For instance, literature on caste routinely states that the caste system legitimises social distance between the upper castes and castes considered untouchable. It also states that distance is maintained with the help of the concept of pollution: the notion that touch, shadow, consumption of food cooked by members of an untouchable caste or of water drawn by them pollutes persons belonging to the upper castes. It is generally believed distance can be bridged with education, and cities are melting pots that make for caste integration. (Chitnis, 2011, p. 202)
Ground Cause of Difference
However, the social reality is that this does not happen so easily. Furthermore, it is also observed that some identified factors create differentiation among various people in the neighbourhood. The results are presented in Table 3.
Table 3 reflects the genesis and reasons for differentiation among people in a neighbourhood. Out of 441 respondents, 183 (41.49 per cent) state that differentiation levels sharpen because low caste people are not wealthy and do not have material possessions, land and/or education.
All these factors together cause levels of differentiation amongst different castes in a neighbourhood. Eighty-seven respondents (19.73 per cent) say that the caste hierarchy is the obvious reason for differentiation and 62 (14.06 per cent) view the cause of differentiation as the difference in caste hierarchy along with low educational qualifications. Likewise, the village-wise analysis also co-relates with the analysis that at the middle level of poverty, caste identity, along with a lack of financial backing and material possessions, including land and education, is higher followed by the higher and lower incidences of poverty (Figure 4). The view held by Thorat, Omvedt and Macwan (2009, p. 10) is that ‘social mixing for relationship across caste was also not allowed’ in the Indian milieu because of its structural connotation. Amartya Sen (2000) calls it ‘constitutive relevance’ of exclusion, ‘which arises because of their inability to relate to other and partake in the life of the mainline community, which can directly impoverish them as a social group with a distinct identity’.
Caste: Basis of Distance/Disallowance
Respondents, when questioned, said: ‘We are not allowed in temples run by Thakurs.’ And, ‘upper castes (especially Brahmin) won’t allow us to enter temples’. Torero, Saavedra, Nopo and Escobal (2004) observe that in rural areas, ethnicity is an attribute commonly associated with the native community to have limited contact with other community. Caste-based exclusion and discrimination are essentially ‘structural in nature’. They are comprehensive and multiple in coverage, involving denial of equal opportunity, particularly to excluded castes/groups like ‘untouchables’. Caste acts as a structural barrier for free interaction among people and restricts people to a limited interaction. It has a significant penetration into other civic aspects of life in the locality too.
Table 4 reveals that after sixty-eight years of independence and the implementation of the Indian Constitution, the curse of social disability associated with Dalits still alarmingly continues to jeopardise the social structure in India. The table also presents disability vis-à-vis the distance of the upper castes from Dalit conglomerations. Distance/disallowance is also observed in the use of water, entry into temple, educational institution and so on. Among the respondents, 8 per cent said that Scheduled Caste students face discrimination in school against 93 per cent who disagreed. Ten per cent Dalits face discrimination while drawing or using water from the public well or tap, while 97 respondents said they did not face any discrimination while accessing health services or seeking remedy in a justice-related matter. Ninety-six per cent said that the case of discrimination is not evident in the public or in the market place or when one travels with members of the upper caste using public transport, but it is in the sphere of religion and entry into temples or places of worship where caste discrimination is phenomenally high. In most cases, upper caste Hindus do not allow lower caste Dalits to access public utilities and space. So, while Dalits, in general, face discrimination and exclusion in the sacred domain, the public sphere discrimination is relatively flexible or weak. However, looking at the overall picture, caste rigidity divides both the upper castes and lower castes in theory, practice and praxis.
Further in their study, Thorat et al. (2009, p. 9) mention:
[The] practice of untouchability was reported to be more widespread so far as access to village temples and high caste houses was concerned. In both cases, more than 60 per cent of ex-untouchables were not allowed entry into temple. An overwhelming majority from the so-called ‘touchable’ castes, 70 per cent, did not allow ex-untouchables free access to the local village teashop, even two decades after the Anti-Untouchability Act, 1955.
Denial of Dalit Accessing Services in Villages and Neighbourhood
The trajectory that highlights the minor and major problems Dalits face in their regular livelihood is shown in Table 4. They are not only victims of mere exploitation, subordination or subjugation, but also experience great hardship even to have a minimum civic life. Denial of water from caste wells and sharing public spaces in school and even in the health sector are prevalent in modern India even today. Figure 5a represents the data regarding flexibility in castes and the level of participation of the Dalits in village community activity.
The participation of dalits in community activities/programmes is represented in Figure 5a. Eighty-four respondents (19.05 per cent) say they did show an interest in participating in community activity, whereas 214 (48.53 per cent) say they are not allowed to participate in these activities. Twenty-three per cent opine they were fully free and at liberty to participate in community activities, while 9 per cent fail to give a proper answer. Hence, it is evident that for 48 per cent of the respondents, caste discrimination is prevalent, which hinders free participation in community activities or joint programmes.
A village-wise analysis reflects more restrictions in villages with a higher incidence of poverty (Figure 5b). This is explained by a Dalit: ‘If we go to any public place in village they taunt us by our caste name, calling us, Chamaragaya.’ Furthermore, it is clear that exclusion is the general trend in areas studied, with Dalits not being allowed free participation in the daily life of the village. Nandu Ram (1995, p. 211), in his observation, makes it evident that ‘the Scheduled Castes as a whole are regarded marginal in terms of their outcaste image, cultural diversity with structural or positional “inferiority” of their culture and, hence, lack their full integration (unity) in Hindu society…’. Table 5 explains the kind of activities in which Dalits are not allowed to participate in an open and free manner.
Table 5 shows the members of the upper caste do not allow Dalits to participate in most activities, even though they live near their neighbourhood. 16.09 per cent of the respondents indicate that they are not allowed to visit the temple in the village, 10.88 per cent are not allowed/invited to marriages or other family related rituals, 4.98 per cent caste Hindus do not permit their children to play with Dalit children, 0.91 per cent of Dalits are not given a chance to speak in Panchayat meetings, 1.36 per cent are restricted from any kind of hospital facility and 1.13 per cent feel restricted at a psychological level. The conservative and casteist attitude of their upper caste neighbours also keep Dalits alienated from important work and activities in the village. In the words of a respondent, ‘they are restricted in terms of food, lifestyle and marriage ceremonies and not allowed to fetch water from wells or the tube wells of the upper castes’. Furthermore, ‘food, when it is given, is served using regular utensils but is served in old and rejected utensils or separate dish bowls kept for cows or dogs’.
Non-participation of Dalits in Community Programmes and Activities
The findings of Thorat et al. (2009, p. 11) are in consonance with this study:
Eighty per cent in small villages and all in large villages face caste discrimination in village- level cultural events, that is, drama, theatre, etc. Their numerical disadvantage and poverty and fear (especially in small villages) discourage the lower castes to contest different elections. However, most ex-untouchables have free access to school and hospitals in both villages.
Reasons for Non-participation
Furthermore, Modi, in his analysis, also mentions:
An action aid society of 347 villages spread across ten states of India (see Shah, et al. 2000) found that discrimination in the labour market operates often through exclusion in hiring and/or payment of lower wage. In the past, the pollution versus purity concept associated with untouchability excluded lower castes participating in a large number of socio-economic activities. There have been instances of denial of access, or of access with differential treatment in terms and condition of a contract, discrimination in price charged and received, in fees and levies for the supply of essential goods like water, and in differential rentals on houses/apartment, if not outright preference (or otherwise) for tenants. (Modi, 2015, p. 8)
The reasons of non-participation in neighbourhood activities are presented Table 6.
The frequency of distribution of respondents showing the basis on which they are not allowed to participate in community activities is presented in Table 6. Of the respondents, 33 per cent say that caste and poverty are major factors behind Dalit deprivation and are responsible for not being allowed to participate in community activities, 8.61 per cent opine that caste is the main cause of nonparticipation and 4.31 per cent consider caste and caste-based occupations and a lack of education as the major cause of social exclusion. Of the respondents, 39.9 per cent are of the view that caste, along with other allied factors, play an important role, and poverty is not the only reason behind their poor condition. The pertinent point is that caste is still dominant in all villages and plays a decisive role. In 48 per cent of the cases, non-participation in community activities occurred due to the ‘poor-polluted’ caste equation. A village-wise analysis also reflects that caste was the sole basis of non-participation, irrespective of the incidence of poverty in villages. Kumar (2013, p. 64) writes: ‘The dominant sections discriminate against Dalits while delivering political, economic, educational and other rights which are enshrined for them in the Indian Constitution.’ Likewise, Saxena (2013, p. 5) observes: ‘Though the caste disadvantage has been well documented as an important and pervasive axis of social inequality in India, disadvantage and discrimination does not end with Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.’
Discussion
Dalits in India are socially depressed, economically dependent, politically marginalised and culturally deprived and starved (Mungekar, 1999, p. 292). From this empirical study, it becomes clear that caste-based exclusion and the discrimination of Dalits, through residual traditional attributes, continues to be one of the main reasons that affects social interaction and impacts their ‘un-development’, and drives levels of deprivation, isolation and harassment in every sphere of activity. If you are disadvantaged, it is reasonable to assume that your access to education, training, capital, technology or other such productivity enhancing measures will be constrained, perpetuating disadvantage and inequality’ (Modi, 2015, p. 12).
Hindrance to social interaction is the product of continuing exclusion-induced deprivation of Dalits, indicating that addressing social exclusion is often more difficult than addressing poverty. Social and cultural exclusion, economic, civil and political, are rooted in India’s predominant Hindu social structure. Indeed, the institution of caste and untouchability do not remain confined to limited private spaces and categories, but exists in the public domain governed by state apparatus. Social exclusion is magnified in the absence of social interaction and caste rigidity, accentuating new nomenclature in daily life. Furthermore, the inclusion of excluded groups is different from the social inclusion of materially deprived people. Poverty, even when broadly defined as an exclusion from the means of necessity for the full participation in the normal activities of society, is also largely a question of access to resources and services. The social exclusion of groups or individuals within such a group is foremost a denial of equal opportunity, respect and recognition of the right to development. Fighting discrimination and reinforcing social interaction, therefore, calls for additional policies that complement anti-poverty and economic development programmes.
However, there is also a considerable overlap and need to combine and complement, and not to divide programmes against poverty and economic deprivation and policy for equal rights and social inclusion of disadvantaged groups. The Indian policy-makers’ approach to overcome discrimination and social exclusion requires policy interventions such as legal enforcement of anti-discriminatory laws, reservation and referential and general empowerment measures, which essentially form part of anti-poverty programmes to usher in a noticeable change. Such policies may bring in a positive and desired change, because the current rate of ‘improvement’ is not satisfactory or equitable enough to reduce the absolute levels of deprivation or the gap between the excluded Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and other advanced sections of society.
Conclusion
In India, with its various attributes and diversity of factors, drawing a conclusion is never easy and simple. However, one can state that caste identity is exclusive and the principal cause of distance and differentiation in Indian society today. After six decades of independence and despite the presence of legal provisions in the Indian Constitution, even the process of social interaction is governed by a caste hierarchy and hegemony. Given this reality, Dr Ambedkar presciently anticipated the disparity between stated aim and actual progress in social solidarity, widening the inclusion gap. He warned on 26 January 1950, ‘We are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics, we will have equality but in social and economic life we will have inequality’ (Ambedkar, 2010, p. 9). And not surprisingly, tensions between policy and practice still remain strongly entrenched.
Furthermore, social exclusion, as a process, is active and acts as a major stumbling block in the free interaction of people, which explains why Dalits are generally cut off from a full and meaningful involvement in society. Caste is considered to be a great obstacle preventing Dalits from accessing opportunities available to a majority of non-Dalits. In order to have a minimum quality of life, Dalits not only need to have food, clothing and shelter, but also an equal access to essential services such as education, health, transportation, social security and police and judiciary. In the case of Dalits, social exclusion is not an accidental phenomenon, but a stringent and systemic one. It is an issue which requires serious address so that Dalits can live a dignified and equitable life, free from discrimination and social exclusion, which ensures democratic participation for all in all spheres of life and its various processes of interaction.