ईसाई धर्म अपनाने वाले हिंदू दलितों के लिए, समानता की मौलिक आशा काफी हद तक साकार नहीं हुई है

 For Hindu Dalits who converted to Christianity, the fundamental hope of equality has not been realised to a large extent

ईसाई धर्म अपनाने वाले हिंदू दलितों के लिए, समानता की मौलिक आशा काफी हद तक साकार नहीं हुई है

possibility of granting Scheduled Caste (SC) status to Dalit Christians 

Last year, the Union Government made  a commission, headed by the former Chief Justice of India, K.G. Balakrishnan, to study the possibility of granting Scheduled Caste (SC) status to Dalit Christians. 

Recently, a resolution was adopted by the Tamil Nadu Assembly 

1 to amend the 1950 Presidential (SC) order in this regard. 

2 The Justice Ranganath Misra Commission (2007) recommended ‘permitting Dalits who converted to Christianity to avail of reservation benefits under the SC quota’. 

3 The findings arrived at by Deshpande and Bapna (2008) appointed by the National Commission of Minorities, stated that ‘there is no compelling evidence to justify denying them of SC status’.

4 It was B.R. Ambedkar who said, “To the ‘Untouchables’, Hinduism is a veritable chamber of horror (Writings and Speeches, Volume 9, p.296)”. 

millions of Hindu Dalits converted to more egalitarian / same rights to all religions including Christianity, in the hope of escaping the clutches of casteism and experiencing the equality promised by such religions. 

why Hindu Dalits converted to Christianity — has not been realised to a large extent 

1 we want  fundamental hope of equality — the reason why Hindu Dalits converted to Christianity — has not been realised to a large extent. 

2 This has resulted in contradictions and ambiguities with regard to their identity, and has not led to their expected upward social mobility. 

Intersectional burdens

The ‘Theory of Intersectionality’ 

1 shows the bigger picture of the Dalit Christian conundrum  / confusing question  as it allows an understanding of caste with religion and a composite understanding of Dalit Christians as ‘Dalits’ and as a ‘religious minority group’.

 2 It also extrapolates / extend  an understanding of the inadequacy of the ’single-axis framework’ of the laws of the state of India that provides legal protection to isolated categories

3  and discriminates against groups where categories overlap, such as Dalit Christians.

4 It shows that various oppressing / दमन  systems such as race, gender, sexuality and ability cannot be understood in isolation from the other.

5 The consequence of such intersectional discrimination is the specificity of discrimination that has been introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw, who is the pioneer of the Theory of Intersectionality.

In her seminal article, “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color”,

 she writes, ‘because of their intersectional identity as both women, women of colour are marginalised within both’.

6  This description helps form the basis of understanding of intersectionality as a framework to study Dalits and Christians as ‘Dalit Christians’ who are subjected to structural intersectional discrimination, thereby experiencing exclusion by society, the church and the state.

Intersectionality and identity

‘Identity’ 

is an individual’s claim of membership with particular social categories and

 social identities relating to various social categories that exist societally, that are in effect ‘inputs’ into self-identities.

It must be stated that like in the case of ‘black women’

the term ‘Dalit Christian’ cannot be understood as a mere addition of two words but rather as a distinctive category, as this intersection is a unique hybrid creation of multiple social identities.

 The term ‘Dalit Christians’

 This is the exact view that the state of India holds on Dalit Christians, 

even while the disabilities of Dalit Christians continue after conversion and the state views them as just ‘Christians’, eventually pushing them into an ‘intersectional invisibility’. 

Amartya Sen explains this as a ‘collectivities’ of identities to which a person can belong to, providing a particular identity that becomes variously relevant in different contexts.

 He points out that ‘the priorities over these identities must be relative to the issue at hand’, adding that a person can choose a dominant one from such a plurality of identities to avail of a benefit.

 वह बताते हैं कि 'इन पहचानों पर प्राथमिकताएं मौजूदा मुद्दे के सापेक्ष होनी चाहिए', साथ ही यह भी कहा कि कोई व्यक्ति लाभ प्राप्त करने के लिए ऐसी अनेक पहचानों में से एक प्रमुख पहचान को चुन सकता है। 

A ‘single-axis’ framework

In the Soosai Etc vs Union Of India And Others case (1985), 

1 सूसाई, एक दलित कैथोलिक मोची, ने राज्य सरकार द्वारा प्रदान किए गए मद्रास में एक मंच पर गुमठी    स्थापित करने के विस्तार के लिए भारत के सर्वोच्च न्यायालय का रुख किया, ताकि वह हिंदू मोची के बराबर हो सके। 

2 न्यायालय ने यह कहते हुए मामले को खारिज कर दिया कि 'यह सिद्ध करना आवश्यक है कि अपने मूल हिंदू धर्म की सामाजिक व्यवस्था में ऐसी जाति सदस्यता से होने वाले  भेदभाव , एक अलग धर्म समुदाय के नए वातावरण में अपनी दमनकारी गंभीरता के साथ जारी रहती हैं।'

3 This means that the ‘Dalitness’ of Soosai was completely ignored on the use of ‘single-axis frame work’ approach.

4 it means  caste-based discrimination exists in Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddhism and extends benefits to its Dalits, but excludes Dalit Christians on the basis of an assumption that Christianity is of ‘foreign import’, making their very democratic citizenship questionable.

Thus, the ‘single-axis’ communal framework of the law

1 has resulted in the failure of Dalit Christians being included in the SC list, 

2 because of the unwillingness of the state, in spite of much evidence in their favour.

 3 A way forward lies in the amendment of the 1950 Presidential (SC) order to include Dalit Christians in the SC list.

source the hindu