Dalit Muslims, Caste and Sociological Phenomenon
Dear All: I am reproducing below a brief but very interesting email exchange between Sh Yoginder Sikand and Sh Jay Vachani precipitated by a recent article in Tehelka by Sh Sikand, titled, Converted dalits get no justice. In the article, Sh Sikand has suggested that “Muslim and Christian Dalits should be given reservation just like those who embraced Sikhism and Buddhism“. This argument is not new but Sh Vachani has done a fine job of exposing the core of it – viz. caste being a sociological phenomenon…Pl read on (Thanks to Sanjay for bringing to to my attention and for getting Sh Vachani’s permission to reproduce the exchange here; I have taken out email addresses to protect privacy; emphasis is mine).
*** Email exchange arranged chronologically (oldest email first) ***
First email from Jay Vachani
Dear Mr Sikand, This is with reference to your article “Converted Dalits get no justice” in the 2nd April 2011 issue of Tehelka magazine. I’m confused by your position. Perhaps you can help me understand.
- It is your position that the caste system is on account of Hindus. The Indian constitution Article 25 (2) (b) defines Hindus as those who also profess the Sikh, Jain or Buddhist faiths. If that is indeed the case, then what is wrong with say, a Buddhist scheduled caste (synonymous with a Hindu scheduled caste under the constitution) receiving benefits under the constitution and the law? If the caste system is an exclusively Hindu phenomenon, then by definition, it should not be applicable to the “egalitarian” Islamic and Christian faiths since they don’t recognise the caste system. Or am I missing something here?
- On the other hand, if the caste system is in fact prevalent among Muslims as well as you have demonstrated in your article – where you have claimed that the practice of caste discrimination among Muslims is on account of incorrect applications of fiqh and incorrect interpretations of the Koran – then shouldn’t the removal of social ills be done from WITHIN the community itself since Islam doesn’t, apparently, sanction any such social discrimination?  By making a case for Muslim scheduled castes, are you not seeking the approval, sanction & perpetuation of  a caste system which is highly anti-Islamic, according to you?
- In your interview titled “Politics of Conversion” with one Rashid Salim Adil in Counter Currents, you have not challenged any of the claims made by Mr Adil  viz. on the Muslim caste system,  or his incredible interpretation of  Dr Ambedkar’s views on Muslim society when in fact Dr Ambedkar is on record saying “writing that the social evils in Muslim society were “worse than those seen in Hindu society” (in “Pakistan and the Partition of India”). That’s your prerogative as an interviewer. But then they lead one to ask the following questions:
- Do you agree with the point made by Rashid Salim Adil that “Islam can offer the Dalits a means to their salvation, freeing them from caste slavery? If yes, then why isn’t it a  call for conversion? If no, then clearly, Islam isn’t the answer either.
I hope, but am not hopeful, you will respond. Jay Vachani
***
Reply by Yogi Sikand
Dear Jay, Thanks for your mail.
The Indian Constitution clubs Sikhs, Buddhists and Jains along with the Hindus for purposes of personal law, but this does not mean that these communities are in fact Hindus.
The caste system may be Brahminical/Hindu in its origins, but because the majority of non-Hindus in India are of Hindu origin, they, too are, affected by it. In their case, it exists without any theological sanction–as a sort of sociological phenomenon. There is thus every reason why it is imperative for the state to extend the same affirmative policies to Christian and Muslim Dalits groups as apply to the so-called ‘Hindu’ Dalits, irrespective of their theological differences.
As for my interview with Adil, which I did a great many years ago actually, my views have changed—I think the dominant ways of understanding Islam, as with other religions, are problematic
Yoginder
***
Reply by Jay Vachani
Dear Mr Sikand, Thank you for the prompt response.
If I understand you right, are you making the point then that the so-called caste based discrimination is a sociological phenomenon (as many Hindu scholars have pointed out as a corruption of the jati and varna system) and not a religious one? If that is indeed the case, then shouldn’t all forms of sociologically originated discrimination (eg women’s rights, rights of homosexuals) need to be dealt with? In other words, shouldn’t there be a uniform treatment of the issue of the discriminated? Shouldn’t there be a uniform civil law? The secular liberal West has uniform civil laws and all citizen’s rights are protected/ discriminated equally under those laws.
Am very curious to know your views on this.
***
Reply by Yogi Sikand
Dear Jay,
Thanks for yuor mail
Caste is not a distortion of the varna system, unlike what Brahminical ‘scholars’ claim. Moreover, jati-varna discriminationa dn degradation is clearly part of what is called Hinduism, and so it is, at least in the Hindu case, both a sociological as well as theological issue.
I don;’t see how the issue of uniform personal law relates to the issue of reservations–which is, as far as I could understand–a link that you want to establish.
Yogi
***
Reply by Jay Vachani
***
As of 11th April, I am not aware of any follow-up or any other response from Sh Sikand. Â Comments/thoughts welcome, as always.
A few related Posts:  Who are these “Christian Converts�
Who are these “caste Hindus� ,   A fresh look at Reservations and Quotas – Part II ,
Hinduism, “Caste System†and discrimination – Part II and The British ‘Caste System’ – excerpts
I would not hold my breath, waiting for Mr. Sikand to respond. 🙂
We saw similar behavior from Mr. Salil Tripathi when his view on Hindu kings destroying temples was challenged not so long ago. After all, why deal with facts which would puncture their sweet delusions? These people like to have their cake and eat it too – with a thick icing of intellectual dishonesty.
You are right Kaffir…Not expecting a response…
All: Pl also read: Caste, Varna and Jatis: The need for clarity in intellectual debate. Thanks
This “scholar” wrote a long article in now defunct Observer “exploding myth of Aryan Homeland” based on two key “evidences”: two pieces of pottery supposedly found somewhere in UP and no mention of rice etc in Vedas (Tambul not rice)? This is the quality of their “scholarship”!
While I couldn’t agree more with Jay as far his logic is concerned but again that is a logic for two ends of an argument & not the truth in itself. Someone has rightly said once, “Statistics is just like a bikini, what it reveals is not as important as what it doesn’t reveal”. It may not be an accurate similie but won’t be too inaccurate too. Theology can’t be basis to the deny the rights to a needy. Ironically one needs to understand that instead of challenging such things in democratic society, our constitution recognizes it. With the same token, Can we really call ourselves a Democratic nation? Probably Nope but then you will get tons of arguments both in favor as well against it. Constitution says, all are equal but doesn’t look like with either Theology or Sociological arguments of Jay? While Sikand’s end objective looks right to me but not his logic behind to reach that objective.
Many thanks to Mr.Jay Vachani!
The “Eminent Historian” falls again!
there can be no sensible argument to counter the charge of partiality@discrimination in giving reservation benefits to dalit buddhists and dalit sikhs and refusing it to converts to other religions. for ur info tribal converts to christianity and islam get reservation as tribals.thats the reason we have the gujjars and bakerwals in kashmir supporting us and gilanis deriding them as nonmuslims.p m sayeed 9 times mp and ex union minister was getting elected from a tribal constituency.why the indian govt gives reservation benefits to converted tribals from kashmir to andaman but denies it to dalits(the obcs too are not denied as obc muslims exist)
The main promise of conversion of a dalit is that of non-discrimination in “egalitarian” Islam or Christianity. If however one acknowledges there’s entrenched caste based discrimination in these religions, then an important basis of conversion is lost. This is clearly unacceptable to the proponents of these religions. But theologically and ideologically, there cannot be any notion of caste/dalits in either Islam or Christianity. So, there’s a problem reconciling the promise with the facts on the ground.
Now let us look at another argument: That these converts to Islam and Christianity were all originally Hindus. Living in a largely Hindu environment they find it hard to shake off their caste affiliations.
Islam has been in India for close to 1000 years and has been well entrenched in various parts for at least 500. A convert to say, Islam, rejects his erstwhile Hindu faith & belief system, practices, rituals, clothing,etc in full and yet cannot let go only of caste? And that too over a period of at least 500 years? This can mean only one of these things:
a) that Islam isn’t really egalitarian
b) the practitioners of Islam aren’t really egalitarian (are they un Islamic if they follow caste discrimination?)
c) that Hindu societal forces are so strong that they counter over 500 years of Islam (is Islam weak?)
If it is (c), then it cannot be religion based discrimination but sociological. So if one says that discrimination isn’t religion based but sociological in nature, then I agree with Jay that all forms of discrimination (based on sex, sexual orientation, caste, class, etc) should be against the law. Why be selective for only caste? That would be truly secular, wouldn’t it?
Sanjay
It could be other way around too, Sanjay. Dalit discrimination was inevitable in those days & even now. Although it was part of the sociological factors that led to the creation of the Dalits however the fact can’t be ignored that it also reflected their financial status more than their sociological status. Both go hand in hand. Conversion to Islam or Christianity did give them sociological upliftment, these religions being egalitarian in nature, however couldn’t really, still, uplift their financial status. So they were better off converting with atleast one benefit. From economic stand point they still remain underprivileged & hence the demand for rights as for Hindu dalits under the reservation policies. I don’t see anything wrong in this demand at all. Why are we not trying to look at the issues objectively. We can rugument for its sake but then it doesn’t lead to a healthy society end of the day. Had the dalits got the social & economic status being a Hindu, I am sure there wasn’t any reason for them to even convert.
Just because they converted, aren’t we treating them as outlaws, that they can’t be given any benefits under the same law as applicable to SC/ST/OBC’s. The issue is, we have many people to argument in India but not really many who would really think being in the shoes of those people.
Dear Uttishtha,
I’m all for helping and supporting disadvantaged sections of society. So am not arguing against helping any disadvantaged section, esp Dalits. Am only making the case for a sustainable basis for doing so. Conflating issues of social and economic inequality, esp without understanding the reasons for this inequality, isn’t going to help.
Let us look at the arguments made:
i) “Dalit discrimination was inevitable those days and even now”.
Why was it inevitable? Religious reason or sociological phenomenon? For it to be inevitable, it must’ve been religious since religion is supposed to have divine sanction and the unquestioned faith of the believer. If religious, then those who have converted to another religion shouldn’t face discrimination, right?
If however it is not religious, then it is sociological in nature. In which case, the rest of my and Jay’s earlier argument stands. The current system of providing affirmative action for Dalits also stands.
ii)”Conversion to Islam or Christianity did give them sociological upliftment, these religions being egalitarian in nature, however couldn’t really, still, uplift their financial status. So they were better off converting with atleast one benefit. From economic stand point they still remain underprivileged & hence the demand for rights as for Hindu dalits under the reservation policies”
Shouldn’t therefore all financially disadvantaged citizens be therefore supported? Why only for those converts to Islam and Christianity? Your argument falls flat once you assert that “egalitarian” Islam and Christianity don’t practice social discrimination. It is at painful odds with the argument put forth by Mr Sikand!
Providing, by way of opportunities and assistance, for all disadvantaged sections of society is the duty of every state. Divisive politics for the sake of fomenting agendas, esp religious ones, should be prevented.
Sanjay
Its surprising to me , when so called intellectuals oppose elimination of reservation all together , or implementation of uniform civil code,
just for the sake of argument you can not support faulty islamik law , seems that muslims r not humans , that’s why they have their own unhuman punishments, anyway , freedom of faith or expression does not means any kind of behaviour will be allowed , does US ha a separate Law for muslims like India has Muslims personal law board ? france ?
Hey Sanjay, Here is my response. There may be different school of thoughts & I definitely don’t represent any specific one for I just echo the words you said that benefits for all. However have put my comments to some of your responses.
You said: “Why was it inevitable? Religious reason or sociological phenomenon? For it to be inevitable, it must’ve been religious since religion is supposed to have divine sanction and the unquestioned faith of the believer. If religious, then those who have converted to another religion shouldn’t face discrimination, right? ”
My response: When you say tht it was the religious divine sanction, I really start wondering where do you get this information from. This was a strata within the Hindu society based on the socilogical needs & hence talking of religion as the reason behind is nothing more than a fancy thoughtprocess & can’t be justified more than a fallacy. What I mean by inevitable is only from the Financial & Sociological standpoint. God never came on earth to say that he would be a dalit or he would be XYZ. Had that been the case, you may as well have got different gods for them. Had that been the case you wouldn’t have dis-allowed the dalits to visit a temple. Religious practices never propound that.
You Said: “Shouldn’t therefore all financially disadvantaged citizens be therefore supported? Why only for those converts to Islam and Christianity?
My response: That is what I said in my comments as well that benefits shall be for all irrespective of religious practices. Irony is that Muslim or Christian dalits don’t get those benefits contrary to your statement which says that “they are getting it so why not others”. Some States may have initiated but definitely not at the GoI level.
You said: “Your argument falls flat once you assert that “egalitarian†Islam and Christianity don’t practice social discrimination. It is at painful odds with the argument put forth by Mr Sikand!”
My response: On the question of whether they are egalitarian or not is still justifiable for reasons that they have different faiths / Sects within their religion I have not really heard of different faiths within Hinduism. I would wait for your response to that.
Would like to learn from you & am willing to change my thoughts if I find your responses to be convincing enough.
regards
Neeraj Singh
Uttishtha Bharat
Don’t be fooled by Yoginder Sikand’s Punjabi-sounding name. He is neither Sikh nor Hindu.
Sikand is a silent convert to Islam and performs namaaz 5 times a day. He is a big apologist for Islam, Quran and Mohammed; and will argue vehemently for them.
One of his colleagues told me that Sikand’s maternal ancestry is Muslim…and that’s where his sympathies lie.
He hates Hindus and Sanatan Dharma from the bottom of his heart.
His sympathies lie with the Islamist terrorists who are active in J&K, as well as their overground supporters/organizations infesting various parts of India.
Sikand retains his former Hindu name when he writes books/articles so that he can carry on his nefarious agenda (of facilitating India’s Islamisation) by fooling Hindus with his pseudo-scholarly work.
If you don’t believe me, just google his name.
More on the prevalence of “caste system” amongst Muslims…
in India: Caste divide among Bhopal’s Muslims fast widening / by Akbar Khan | Bhopal 04.08.10
http://www.dailypioneer.com/273569/Caste-divide-among-Bhopal’s-Muslims-fast-widening.html
and elsewhere: http://www.hvk.org/articles/0303/145.html
Social stratification among Muslims in India
Author: Zarina Bhatty
Taken from chapter “Social stratification among Muslims in India” by Zarina Bhatty from the book “Caste — its twentieth century avatar” by M N Srinivas, Viking, New Delhi, 1996, pp 249 – 253.
Shantanu: First of all thanks for putting this new thread to the topic. It’s really interesting. Just few points that kept me pondering:
1/ Being an educated soul, why would Doctor Sahib believe in such things like caste specially When the whole nation wants to move away from it. Doesn’t it sound like a Khap decree.
2/ Does he mean that Sharafat only exists in the clans that are superior. By that token, Dr Ambedkar can’t be sharif at all, could he?
3/ Why won’t he, rather, emulate Sharafat everywhere instead of keeping it limited to his own upper case clan?
4/ Are we going to see more of caste clashed among muslims too?
5/ Or, is it just few off incidences glorified by the author?
Quote from ur article “Technical Officer at the Hamidia Hospital and a Syed by caste, Dr Yousuf Khalil totally subscribes to the idea of marrying within a same caste family saying, as he has noticed a clear difference in the moral character and social conduct of those coming from various caste backgrounds.
He says that he would marry within his own caste and in a known family to ensure that the virtues of sharafat were passed on undiluted to future generations.”
From Arab origins By Salman Rashid, brief excerpts:
…Most of us are the progeny of converts. In their need to escape the discrimination of the so-called higher castes, our ancestors converted to a religion that in theory claimed to profess human equality regardless of colour or caste. I use the words ‘in theory’ because even as the Arabs converted our ancestors to Islam, they discriminated against them for being “Hindis†as we learn this from Ibn Batuta’s own prejudices. And he is not alone.
Consequently, even after conversion, my ancestors, poor agriculturists, were looked down upon by the Arabs and even those who had converted earlier the same way as they were by the Brahmans when they professed their Vedic belief. Within a generation or two, those early converts began the great lie of Arab ancestry to be equal to other converts and the Arabs. This became universal with time.
Adding this here for the record..
From Muslim kids refuse mid-day meal in school
PATNA: Dozens of Muslim students of a government-run Urdu school in a village in Bihar have refused to take mid-day meals cooked by a Dalit woman.
“We will not touch the food. There is no question of taking food cooked by a woman belonging to the scheduled caste,†said Nurjahan Bano, an eight-year-old student of Amri Urdu middle school in Rohtas district, about 150 km from here.
Somewhat related..
From Tension after Dalit priests not included in church rituals, Rameswaram,Oct 7, 2012, (PTI):
Tension prevailed at Tiruvadanai, about 70 km from here after some Dalit Christians reportedly indulged in violence, questioning non-inclusion of six Dalit priests in special rituals in a church in connection with its silver jubilee celebrations, police said.
Susai Manickam,priest of Oriyur Punitha Arulanandhar church said about 200 priests and nuns coming in a procession to the church were blocked by Dalit Christians who questioned the motive for suspending the six priests and said they would not allow celebrations unless the priests were included in the ‘Tirupali’ pooja and special prayers.
Police said they then indulged in violence, breaking festoons and street lights. Church officials decided to suspend the celebrations in order to hold talks with the Dalits as a tense situation prevailed and negotiations with them failed.
Meanwhile people in seven coastal hamlets in Rameswaram hoisted black flags in support of Dalit Christians and demanded that caste Christians allow Dalits to participate in the rituals.
Placing this here for the record: Dalit Christians at CSI Madurai yet to see one of their own as Bishop by D. KARTHIKEYAN
It has been more than six decades and they form 60 per cent of the population, but still Dalit Christians of Church of South India (CSI) Madurai-Ramnad Diocese are unable to support and elect a member of their caste as Bishop.
Dalit Christians of the Diocese are fuming that caste prejudices still exist and one’s caste identity trumps the Christian faith. Elections held to choose the sixth Bishop of the diocese on December 20, 2012 saw a Dalit, Rt. Rev. Baninga Washburn, emerge winner in the first two rounds in which 13 candidates contested, and Rt. Rev. Joseph (member of intermediate caste) came second.
However, it has been five months since the elections were held and Rev. Washburn has not been officially announced as the winner by the Moderator of the Diocese. Previous elections show that the winner of the first two rounds was announced as winners, said a member of the Diocese who wanted to maintain anonymity.
…
Dalit Christians who had been silent about the prevailing prejudices have finally come out to publicise this issue and take the struggle forward.
…
N. J. Gnaniah, a Missiologist, in his paper titled Caste, Christianity, and Cross-Cultural Evangelism Revisted, says that caste is still an undeniable part of Christian society here.
A relevant excerpt from De-reservation is the need of the nation by Makarand Paranjpe, 14th Nov ’22:
…
If reservation is extended to SCs who have converted from Hinduism to Christianity or Islam, it would actually incentivise proselytisation and weaken Hindu society. In fact, there is a strong case to reverse the present entitlement of non-Hindu STs (Scheduled Tribes) to reap this harvest; only those STs who identify as Hindu should get the benefits of reservation, not those who do not or who have left the Hindu fold.
The Abrahamic faiths cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim their deprivations which supposedly originate in Sanatana Dharma while proclaiming the equality of all believers once the latter embrace Christianity or Islam. If the caste system persists after a convert has left their ancestral fold and joined the ranks of believers, then the professed “equality” of the latter is a chimera, if not a fraud.