Discrimination
Apartheid, Caste, Palestine and the Discrimination of Roma
The UN’s World Conference Against Racism, Xenophobia and other forms of Intolerance (WCAR, August 29 to September 2, 2001) was held in Durban, South Arica. IHEU obtained a travel scholarship for its representative Prof. B D Desai (General Secretary of the IHEU Member Organisation Satya Shodhak Sabha, Surat, India) to participate in this crucial World Conference, as well as in the NGO Conference preceding it. As an organisation with Special NGO Consultative Status with the UN, the IHEU is automatically invited to the UN’s Conference, has the right to be present at the governmental meet as an observer and to circulate written statements at World Conferences of the UN. Prof. Desai reports.
Lobbying
In all, 160 countries took part in the Conference. During the regular or the official WCAR, it was very routine and mechanical diplomatic activity except where some contentious issues were raised. These difficult issues had to be negotiated behind the scenes and mainly concerned inclusion or dropping of certain passages from the draft declaration.
Our focus was mainly to lobby. As teams of NGOs we tried to meet as many official delegates as possible, and talked to them about the different ways in which the problem of Racism surfaces in the world - particularly in South Asia and Eastern Europe. Despite much negative press coverage, I am happy to report that we got a patient hearing, appreciation for our efforts, recognition of certain regional problems, and active support from a large number of delegates.
The major areas and issues where I had the opportunity to contribute as IHEU’s representative were during the NGO Forum where the atmosphere was congenial. There were many to support genuine human rights movements, there was a lot of enthusiasm, enough time and meaningful exchange of viewpoints.
Does Race include Caste?
One priority for Humanists and other Human Rights activists was to highlight the plight of the Dalits (untouchables) who are victims of the Hindu caste system. More particularly, as pointed out by the IHEU in its letter to the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, it was important to ask whether caste should be included within the definition of race. In most of the South Asian countries and particularly in India, through the age-old caste system, a large number of people (160 million!) are denied basic human rights. The Dalit Human Rights Activists decided to attract global attention to the fact that they are being humiliated by gross violations of their rights for centuries. They aimed at awakening the world’s conscience by informing peoples and governments. In India, the National Campaign for Dalit Human Rights, an umbrella organization for several voluntary bodies, launched a nation wide campaign to sensitise people to the issue. In reaction to this, the government of India began a counter campaign, dutifully supported by some academicians and sociologists who argued that Casteism was not Racism and that this issue could not be raised at the International for a as it was a domestic matter.
On behalf of myself and on behalf of the IHEU, I took the stand that WCAR stood solidly for Human rights and against their violation. It was a World Conference not just to condemn narrowly defined racism, but for fighting all the discriminatory practices that racism implies. The Conference mandate was to discuss "discrimination based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin". Hence the issue of caste should be included on the agenda. Casteism constitutes a gross violation of fundamental human rights. The discrimination is more social than biological. However, a person is born to a caste, just as he is to a race and that makes him/her subject to discrimination and violation of fundamental principle of human rights, which proclaims that all persons are equal, not necessarily in income and wealth or capabilities, but in dignity. Countering the Govt. of India’s position, we maintained that to say that caste cannot be discussed in a conference on racism is to miss the whole point of a human rights conference.
Govts. Lobby Too!
Shockingly, some nations which supported the WCAR not only denied the existence of discrimination based on work and descent, but also tried to pressurize other nations to withdraw their statements - statements that merely asked for recognition of discrimination based on descent and work. The UN Human Rights Commission and its High Commissioner Marry Robinson recognized and affirmed unambiguously the existence of such discrimination. The efforts of these countries to ignore the issue was against the spirit of the WCAR It is also against the UN charter in letter and in spirit, and therefore hurtful to the conscience of humanity.
The outcome of unholy alliances and lobbying was that the Govt. of India succeeded in eliminating all references to Caste in the final document. Israel, China and Mauritius supported India. The most encouraging matter in this situation is that several countries including the USA and particularly the EU member countries vehemently supported the Dalit cause. The issue has been amply highlighted: a large number of leaders of the UN’s member states, their delegates and Human Rights Activists and many other people around the world are now aware of the Dalit issue.
South Africa, the Host Country
The Govt. of South Africa played generous host and successfully organized the WCAR. Since 1994, the regime has been trying to reform several aspects of its society that systematically devastated the lives of the non-white South Africans. The new Constitution of 1996 signifies an effort to craft a state animated by human rights norms. But as is our experience with several other countries, at the operational level progress is very slow. The treatment of students in school, the behaviour of the police, lack of job opportunities and more particularly land laws that gave whites privilege and power while leaving blacks dispossessed of their land continue to affect the non-white population. So the disproportionate land distribution has to end. I expressed sympathy and support for the human rights of the Blacks South Africans and expressed the hope that their struggle would ultimately bring an end to the discrimination and violation of human rights.
Palestine
A large number of Palestinian NGO delegates were present at the NGO Forum and the WCAR conference to protest against what they termed "the racism of the Israeli Palestinians". They also tried to voice their discontent as regards the indifference of the International Community towards the racist legislations of the Israeli state.
They called for support for the struggle for justice, equality, democratic and human rights of the Palestinians, and the end of Zionism in the region. The world could not ignore the plight of the Palestinians, they argued. We exchanged literature.
Democratic Rights of the Romas
During the days of both the WCAR and the NGO conference, the most vociferous and spirited group that was trying to attract global attention to their own plight were the Romas or gypsies of Eastern Europe.
I came across several Human Rights activists, and gained an idea of how the struggle for Human Rights has been going on across the world; how the whole human race is trying to change and to move forward with the aid of people’s movements founded on human values. I was also sorry that despite so much knowledge and experience, the human race had to unnecessarily go through the agonies and pain of discrimination.
There is still so much that needs to be done!
The Caste System
Humanism requires that nowhere in the world should people be discriminated on the basis of colour, creed, language or religion. In India the basis of ‘varna-jati’ system is sanctioned by scriptures, and the majority of the people are condemned as Panchamas. This is the caste system, which is iniquitous and unjust: it is an obstacle to promoting humanist development and happiness. In order to abolish this pernicious system it is resolved to request the law-makers to amend the constitution to state that casteism is abolished in place of the present article which says untouchability is abolished, since untouchability survives only due to the prevalence of castes.
IHEU General Assembly, Jan 1999, Mumbai
Blink
del.icio.us
Furl
Google
Human Rights and Social Ills
For various reasons, which mostly have to do with politics or publicity, some organisations tend to take up social evils as human rights issues.
I would submit the following for consideration:-
The removal of social ills - such as discrimination on grounds of gender, race or caste; or domestic violence and child-abuse - cannot be accomplished without active intervention by the State. In a liberal democracy this has to be mainly in the form of adequate legislation and effective enforcement. But State action is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for the eradication of social evils. In most societies in transition legislation tends to run ahead of changes in social attitudes and customs. Effective - in fact, draconian - implementation of the enacted laws is essential to bring about changes in social attitudes that have taken roots over generations. But, in a ‘soft state’ like ours, enforcement of the law is notoriously weak; while the hold of tradition, custom, superstition and religion remains strong as ever. The one instrument for weakening this hold: education, has seemingly been singled out for neglect by the Indian State. So, despite legislative measures, social evils of the vilest variety continue to plague Indian society: female foeticide, dowry deaths, child-labour, caste-violence, religious killings are just at the head of a long list.
It would, however, be wrong to bring these ills under the rubric of human rights violations. Most sources define human rights essentially as an issue between governments and individuals or groups. (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Hutchinson Encyclopedia)
How people treat each other is of course of vital importance, but such issues are distinct from lapses by governments in the area of human rights.
In this context the “behaviour” of governments is, of course, not confined just to framing laws to eliminate social evils. The implementation (whether fully effective or not) of these laws, in good faith, is essential. It is not unknown for governments to act in violation of their own laws, or to condone and collude with such violations. This constitutes a clear breach of Human Rights. Poor implementation, by itself, does not amount to such a breach. In issues related to social practices and prejudices, attitudinal change is the key; and legislation can only play an enabling role. Given a ‘soft state’ and a tradition-bound society, implementation just has to be poor.
While some obvious cases - such as torture or custodial deaths - go unchallenged, politically sensitive questions are taken up as Human Rights issues by interested parties to “publicize, promote, and legitimate their concerns at the international level.” In recent years, the question of Human Rights has been gaining increasing prominence in international politics, providing the Great Powers with a handy tool to intervene in the internal affairs of other States. Someone has rightly described Human Rights intervention as a “jemmy in the door of national sovereignty.” Therefore representations in international fora against governments for human rights violations have to be resorted to with great caution and restraint. Here NGO’s, domestic as well as international, have a crucial role to play. It cannot be claimed that in no case do domestic NGO’s have a political, religious or sectarian agenda. In a liberal democracy nothing would prevent the NGO’s from promoting the desired change through the normal democratic process of mobilising public opinion or invoking judicial intervention. When a domestic NGO seeks international intervention against its national government it follows that it has failed to muster the requisite public support or legal vindication for its stand. This factor has to be taken into account by the international NGO before it takes up the issue. This, of course, is true only when the domestic NGO is operating in a democratic setup. The situation in an authoritarian regime is entirely different.
The ‘legislative’ record of the Indian State in combating social ills perhaps cannot be faulted. But the laws remain on paper. The situation on the ground, the social reality, is deeply disturbing. Social evils, such as caste-discrimination, gender-bias, dowry-killings, female foeticide, human trafficking, child -labour, communal violence continue despite legal prohibition. For this the State deserves to be blamed, but mostly for incompetence - not mala fides. Indian society at large is perhaps even more to blame, for being unable to break the shackles of religion, superstition and venality.
Edited for length