 Hello and welcome to the Indian Cultural Forum and NewsClick, a journalist of many years of experience Manoj Mitta has written a new book called Cast Pride Battles for Equality in Hindu India. Today he joins us in the studio to discuss how he came upon this topic and what it says about cast battles and cast pride in today's India. Manoj Mitta, thank you very much for coming to the NewsClick studio to discuss this book of yours which is extensively researched, it's hard to really know where to begin to ask you about it. But let's begin with the first chapter. You highlight this very crucial juncture in India's history where the British Crown after 1857 said that well we are going to let the Hindus run their own religious affairs without interference. What was the result of this declaration in the small state called Kerala today? That's a good question. But it was not only with regard to Hindus that they adopted this hands-off approach, it was also with regard to Muslims because if you recall there were issues about both communities that led to the great revolt of 1857 as a result of which there was this famous Queen Victoria's proclamation which among other things said that it was an undertaking that we shall not interfere with your religious affairs, lest you again feel hurt or believe that we are interfering with your religious matters. So that was somehow mistranslated in Travancore to mean that there was this old custom which forbade lower caste women, particularly those who belong to Shannar or Nadar community to cover their breasts. This was related to the fact that unlike in the rest of the country, South did not just have untouchability but it also had untouchability in an aggravated form called unapproachability. So it was important for upper caste people to know who were the people who were on the same street, who were approaching them. If they happen to be of lower caste then they had no business to be on the same street. So they had to maintain a certain distance between say Nambudri's and Nadar's there was supposed to be this much distance it was all laid down between Nair's who are less than Nambudri's the distance could be less between Nair's and say Nadar's. So there were all these clearly laid down you know minimal distances that they all had to maintain. So now related to that was the fact that it was important for them to know therefore who that person belonged to and if it was a woman they needed to know you know whether it was of which caste right. So that you know determined whether they could interact with them whether they could be on the same street and so on and so forth. So they were therefore particular that there should be a physical difference you know in their appearance. So lower caste women were not allowed to either cover their breasts or if they covered at all it should not be in a manner that would be mistaken for upper caste women. So the upper caste women at the time were accustomed to wearing what was known as shoulder cloth or breast cloth and so it was very particular for them to ensure that Nadar women were not allowed to wear and that is what led to you know a proclamation issued by the Travancore government. At the time the Divan was one Madhav Rao who was otherwise hailed as a great administrator that's right yeah because of you know what the good work he was supposed to have done in Travancore and Baroda later you know he was somebody who was seen as an example of how an Indian administrator was as capable as a colonial administrator to run the country right. Now that man who otherwise had this reputation of being very progressive and so on he was complicit in this decision taken at the instance of upper caste that lower caste women should not be allowed. So they used that Victoria's proclamation to revive that old restriction and said henceforth now we have been empowered by Victoria's proclamation to ensure that you don't cover your breasts and if anybody does that they would be punished. So there was a proclamation to that effect and when the British governor of Madras came to know that he took objection to that because Travancore was a tributary state of the Madras presidency and he said that this couldn't have been the intention of Queen Victoria at all that some members of her gender should be penalized should be suffering like this on account of policy of non-interference. Now non-interference cannot be taken as a license to inflict such dehumanizing customs or to revive such customs. So that led to a prolonged battle as a result of which because of this very forceful intervention on the part of the British governor of Madras Travancore had to roll back that very retrograde measure and allow all women including these people but it wasn't easy because even then they said okay you will be allowed to cover your breasts provided you don't do it in the style of upper caste women because it was important for them at the back of their mind was this notion of unapproachability. So that is how they could ensure the enforcement of that unapproachability. So it was important for them to know who your caste was. So if you also wear a breast cloth then you could be mistaken for Nair and then that would lead to you know the notions of purity and pollution would come into play. So it is all interconnected. There's another legal battle which was fought in the past in India which was that the difference in punishment which was given to someone from a non-elite caste as compared to someone from the elite caste the the brahmins of Varanasi were for eight years you mentioned in your book not given. Not eight years it was more than two decades. For two decades all right were given an exemption from the death penalty for for example now that was one form of it the other was that you could be shackled in a certain way if you were a so-called Shudra. So you know when you were researching your book and you found these instances how much of leniency or leeway did you give to people of those times did you did you think that well this is an atrocity in our eyes today and this is inequality in our eyes today but did people back in the day really see it that way what what was the impression you gathered. See it was the particular instance you are referring to is a corporal punishment that was imported from the west it's part of their biblical literature it's part of even Shakespearean literature it's part of English language too it's about confinement in stocks and that is what led to this usage called laughing stock all right so it's about being shackled to one block of wood which has holes meant for the legs to be put in and you are put in a public place and people can ridicule you throw eggs at you and stuff like that so that's how you are humiliated which is part of that punishment so they've used it in the west typically against the underclass so in the case of India the then governor of medras or he was going to become governor he was first appointed chairman of a commission that was formulating regulations for medras presidency Thomas Monroe so he went on to become governor soon after the enactment of this regulation so he got it into his head to import that particular form of punishment that confinement in stocks and he reserved it for lower caste he actually uses that expression lower caste and remember this was at a time when castes were yet to be sort of counted you know there was no survey there was no survey yet they had no idea yet how many castes existed and the gradations this notion of you know shudras and then ati shudras meaning people below that varna system who are avarnas or untouchables all those notions were still yet to be formed you know this was in 1816 yes and the first caste census was in 1870 so it's you're still several decades away from that right so this kind of enumeration so at a time when they their notions were still very hazy they thought it fit to introduce something like this so their you know rough and ready rule was you can inflict this punishment on whoever it was not considered demeaning suppose you are anyway seen as a member of a lower caste such a punishment would not be you know out of place in your case it's not demeaning yeah it's not demeaning to you because you are anyway belong to that so they easily imbibe those notions because they could see that this is one way they could become acceptable to the elite of Indians particularly Hindu elite because they were so accustomed to thinking in terms of these caste notions so you incorporate that in your administration so you get these the Hindu elite on board and empower them in this manner so this power of inflicting this particular differential punishment the differential punishment based on caste was entrusted to village officers you know village heads who are typically needless to say they are all members of upper caste or dominant caste right so it was very cozy arrangement between the colonial administrators and the Hindu elite so they were in collusion they were together to rule this country you know it was mutually beneficial to them right and there were some people who were able to go to the courts later and say that look we were unfairly punished and one of those groups were the those who were non-elite caste members but they had come into some land of prosperity and the other was Christians yeah and then there was also a case relating to a Muslim all right so it was pointed out that look I mean this was the crude understanding those days so the court said well this was supposed to be for lower caste now this man was a Muslim and Muslims ruled this country for so many centuries right so he he couldn't possibly fit the description of a lower caste you can't inflict this punishment on him because it would not be he this is this would be demeaning to him you know it's it should it should not be so I mean it's something that should be appropriate for his status this kind of corporal punishment so people took status based on caste yeah so these are all these are all those early signs you know that's why I put it in this chapter called early courts that's right that even before caste enumeration and even before there was a clear or sophisticated understanding of those the what Ambedkar later called graded inequalities yes they they already had put in place such measures and this particular form of punishment was an existence for a century and it was only in the second decade of the 20th century that it was repealed and I mean what is remarkable is it was repealed at the instance of Indian legislators who had begun to be you know playing a prominent role in legislatures and administration by and by in stages their representation increased and at that stage you know lower caste members were yet to be a part of the ruling mechanism right so it was left to some progressive upper caste members as it happened it was one Narasimha here who was instrumental in pushing the colonial administration to repeal this form of punishment which was by then in existence for about a century all right now that's what actually made me you know when you highlight these incidents I always wonder why you have named your book Hindu India caste pride battles by quality in Hindu India because from all the incidents they're far too many to narrate or encapsulate in this interview but from all of this it seems like there was no Hindu India there was a caste India when it came to the Hindus and and and this is all pre-Hindu of the kind of politics we see today was there a Hindu identity which seems to shine through through the court hearings but people conscious of being Hindu okay let me separate the title from the subtitle all right the title was obviously used in an ironic sense it was to I mean I'm there is no suggestion that caste is anything one should take pride in of course but it was meant to shift the gaze from the plight of lower caste or marginalized caste oppressed caste to the attitudes and dilemmas of upper caste or dominant caste so that's what the book attempts to show that caste is something that affected everybody in varying degrees and forms it's not something that only concerns untouchables or Dalits as far as the subtitle is concerned why do I say Hindu India yes you are absolutely astute in pointing out that you know was there in asking whether there was something known as Hindu India at the time what comes through is yes I mean these were battles that were fought among Hindus to that extent it was a Hindu issue right because caste was something that originated and that was thriving among Hindus because of what was perceived as religiously sanctioned custom right and it is also what also comes through is that for many of these people you know religion is something about which they have a very liberal attitude you know you there are no hard and fast rules about how you worship who you worship you know whether you go to a temple or not there is a you know freedom given to you in all such matters but when it came to caste it was non-negotiable you know you had to abide by caste rules and caste is what had a coercive mechanism because there were these caste bodies through which penalties could be imposed through which you could be ostracized through which you know all sorts of coercive measures could be taken but as far as religion is concerned you know there was it is anyway said that you know Hinduism scores very well on the parameter of liberty but when it comes to equality and fraternity they are often sorely deficient despite such you know exclusion of that community from all you know kind of social interaction with them right if in spite of that you want to call them Hindus the point is they have one range of very peculiar disabilities you know that marks them out as people who are particularly vulnerable so you need to put in place certain special measures you even before you think of any measures you need to first study them you need to collect data on them across the country to determine how many of them are there what kind of disabilities to they suffer and what kind of safeguards can be put in place all that study needs to be done so till that point nobody thought it fit to address this issue at all because the justification available to the Hindu elite was oh we are all engaged in the larger battle of political emancipation these social reform issues can be taken up later after we achieve you know political freedom so this was how they were conveniently differing this matter and it was left to an unknown Parsi legislator called Manikji Dada boy to raise it and because there was such opposition to you know his attempt to pass a resolution on depressed classes they were called the government the colonial government persuaded him to not press for voting on that he said you withdraw that but the substance of what you have said we will act on that and true to their word they took a range of measures for instance in Madras they put in place an office called protector of depressed classes and for the first time you know the then governor of Madras in 1919 Willingdon nominates on his own Dalit called MC Raja to the legislature and this was a revolutionary step to take because you know suddenly overnight this man who belongs to a community that is derided looked down upon not allowed to interact with you at all he has to as is the protocol he has to be called a honorable member you know so that was those are the kind of revolutionary steps that were taken if I was to ask you out of all the cast of characters you've unearthed and you know written more about who impressed you the most who you think was most instrumental in raising the political consciousness among what were then known as the depressed classes see it's hard to choose any one person because they've all contributed in different ways and building on each other and they are yeah they were building on each other's efforts and they were faced with different situations at different in different regions and there was a great deal of diversity in the way you know cast was practiced or untouchability was practiced so it's hard to single out any particular person but my personal favorite is Virayan because somehow despite Madras presidency being such a huge battleground for you know caste equality he never got his due I mean there was a book that talked about these very assertive legislators you know thanks to the initiative of the British administration they were in a position to raise a noise you know raise questions push through some resolutions but the fact that some one of them even succeeded in getting an a bill passed was something that escaped the notice of our academy academia so it was a matter of you know satisfaction for me that something as important as this you know I managed to put on record but otherwise you know there were so many of course other so just to conclude today to what extent would you say that our judiciary has a caste bias see as I began by saying that it was the discovery of this what is called structural bias that made me go into where it was coming from you know it made me go into this 200 year history of various legislative and judicial battles for equality right so where is it coming from you know these battles you know remained inconclusive for instance when I cited the example of intercast marriage when I said that suddenly the vehement opposition that Patel faced in 1918 how did it all disappear and how did it all how did this man Thakur Das Bhargava's bill get passed unanimously does it mean that there was a change of heart no it was expediency right it was not possible anymore for them to be so brazenly opposing something so basic but I would say it was it would be evident that they are being very casteist right and it's against the you know those high values that they were espousing at that very time you know this was the time when constitution constituent assembly debates were going on and just after that in 1950 we formally swore by you know a range of fundamental rights and so on and so forth so that you know led to this kind of a phase when there was a pretense of our being wedded to it and it took a while for the pushback to materialize as a result what you see is you know it's very comparable to what happened in U.S. you know after abolition of slavery in 1860s it took a while for a pushback from the white supremacists it was when southern states adopted segregation laws which are otherwise called Jim Crow laws so it was while enforcing these segregation laws suddenly there was an escalation of violence against blacks that's when you saw caste riots that's when you saw lynchings these kind of things never happened during those decades when slavery was enforced because it was legally permissible to oppress them right anybody who violated would be immediately swiftly dealt with right similarly here in India so long as untouchability was enforced there wasn't this kind of mass violence against untouchables so what you saw that's right I mean people like Gandhi, Ambedkar or even Nehru never saw this in their lifetime the first ever instance of mass violence targeting Dalits took place in 1968 in a village called Kilvin Mani in Madras presidency and that said the template you know there were some 42 women and children who were burnt alive and the justice that was done or was purportedly done never dealt with questions about how did they all happen to be you know together in one room together in one room how were they not allowed to escape how did they all die in one tiny room like that right yeah so those questions remain unanswered and the High Court went on to acquit all the accused and it went on to say that it is unreasonable to expect uh it's improbable that you know well-heeled people who had cars would have engaged in this kind of violence and so on and so forth so they gave a very classist and casteist judgment and acquitted them so Kilvin Mani set a template for not just mass violence but it also set a template for impunity that bias you're talking about so where was it coming from these battles that were fought through these two centuries they remain inconclusive it's not as if there was a change of heart right you know so that shows in the form of this bias I get your point is it possible Mani is you're adding another last question is it possible really to whatever the political circumstances in India today or tomorrow is it possible to think of a time when we have reversed all the gains made in the past and you think of going back to a time no matter how wonderful some people might think it was to when there were separate sets of rules and laws for one caste and the other caste where atrocities are you're talking about that utopia of purity that's right that the upper caste could be absolutely all the gains we made post-independence for whatever reason can they be reversed can India go back to 1857 from where most of your anecdotes begin yeah I can see that you're asking this question in jest but there are enough people in our society who suffer from this attitude who have a craving who have a nostalgia for that time when the lower caste knew their place and they would not exceed their limits and who would ensure that the upper caste were successful in maintaining their purity and women also insured that the they knew their place yeah that that the purity of that lineage was maintained I'm asking actually in a way different in a slightly different way you have studied the legal progress of India in a sense to where we are now are these changes did these changes seem to you like they are permanent like they are etched in stone in on our republic can we lose all these gains if you're not careful yeah see see you know what is put in a statute book is cannot be a reality unless there is a change in attitude now that's the big question is there really a change in attitude when we don't even you know when there's so much of Brahminical attitudes that still go unchallenged they can get away with the claim that whatever they did all these decades or centuries was in the best interest of the country now that the legislative and judicial debates that you know that took place since 19th century show that Brahmins had taken the position that this respect of what scriptures Hindu scriptures say that in Kalyuga there were only two varnas that there were Brahmins were pure and the rest of the Hindus were all Shudras impure so they were trying to you know keep as much distance as possible between the tiny elite Brahmin section and the rest of the Hindus who were all considered to be Shudras the servile class who were supposed to be steeped in Thomas and they were the only ones who were Satvik so there was no question of any Rajasik and the how did they come up with this claim from Shivaji's days onwards there is evidence of Brahmins taking the position that because of what was said in Purana that Parusharama and Avatar of Vishnu had exterminated all Kshatriyas for abusing their caste privileges the position that Brahmins took was that there were no Kshatriyas and by extension even Vaishyas still in existence because they had also because of neglecting certain rituals they had also reduced to Shudradam this was a position taken in court this was a position taken in courts in legislatures this was what Brahmins in all seriousness had argued and the matter had to go all the way to Privy council in London where a group of Rajputs from Bihar had to go and tell these ask these white masters these white judges please tell us this is the kind of evidence we have to show that we still exist so please determine judicially whether we still exist or not or are these Brahmins right in saying that there are no Kshatriyas in existence anymore now this brings us to the irony of today the Hindutva rhetoric about how what we need today is value is is intellectual Kshatriyas oh right you know and there was a time not too long ago when Brahmins were taking this position on the legal fora and legislative fora that there are no you know Kshatriyas in existence no Vaishyas in existence there are only Brahmins and Shudras this was the position they took right from Shivaji's days onwards even Shivaji was not allowed to anoint himself as a Chhatrapati why because Brahmins of his kingdom said that you are just a Shudra you can only be a king in fact but not by right so he had to resort to a Brahmin all the way from Varanasi and come up with some genealogy some fancy genealogy to say that he is a descendant of Cisodias from Mevar from yeah Rajputana who had escaped Parshuram's acts yeah who somehow escaped who survived Parshurama's purges and Shivaji the great Maratha had to claim that he is actually a descendant of Rajputs from today's Rajasthan and that is how he was finally anointed by this Gagabhat Pandit from Varanasi you know because the Brahmins from his own kingdom refusing to confer that title on him so that was the plight of a man who demonstrated the most undeniable Kshatriya qualities he was the greatest warrior of his time he was considered a very far-sighted administrator but none of those qualities none of those Guna and Karma were considered good enough in Shivaji's case for him to be considered a Kshatriya so look at the hypocrisy of all that look at the contradictions in all that so we need to confront the truth of our history and only then can you really address the problems in today's society the fault lines of today's India thank you very much for joining us Manoj and for sharing your insights thank you for having me