A crowded street in New Delhi, India
The idea that human beings have an inherent dignity by the very fact of them being human is the most basic tenets recognized in modern societies. In feudal societies, there was distinction between those who had dignity (dignitas) and those who lacked it. With the modern democratic revolutions in France, England and the United States, the idea of dignity was generalized as an inherent quality of all human beings. All modern human rights declarations are based on this concept.
Human dignity and equality are ideas that are inseparably linked. To deny dignity to a human being is also to deny him equal status with others. Equality is also a modern concept. In almost all civilization, distinctions were made between those who had equal rights on the basis of equal status, and others. Even in Greek society, the slaves were not considered as being equal in status to those recognized as citizens. In Roman society, a distinction was made between free people and slaves, as well as between both of those groups and aliens. Around two centuries ago, the distinction between slaves and free people was recognized in almost all Western nations. In Russia, too, serfdom was not officially abolished until the mid-19th century. Similarly, various forms of slavery also existed in Asian societies.
India developed a unique master-servant relationship known as the caste system. It goes back into very early times in Indian history. It classified people into four categories according to their inalterable assigned value or worth, as determined by birth. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar named this classification as the grading of human beings. In making the new constitution of India, he mentioned that the constitution adopts modern notions of equality but, in real life, these distinctions still continue to exist.
Modern conceptions and the persistence of old psychological and social habits
The mere introduction of new notions about liberty, equality and fraternity through constitutions and laws does not automatically erase the deeply-engrained habits that have developed as a result of contrary notions and practices prevailing for over a thousand years. This is the problem that the South Asian nations face due to the caste system. The denial of dignity to a large section of the population has left deep psychological scars. These deeply-held beliefs about inferiority and a fear to assert themselves due to possible punishments continue in the minds of people. These cannot be erased by merely introducing new laws. They can only be erased through social practices that strongly affirm the dignity of everyone and creates a social environment within which old fears disappear and new self-confidence grows. People’s self-respect can only be raised when the social milieu is reorganized in terms of these new notions. If no such radical change takes place, old psychological habits of self-negation and diffidence continues.
This is the contemporary situation and it can only be understood when we try to grasp what the denial of dignity for thousands of years has done to those who suffered under those conditions.
Kulahiinas only learned to accept their status as kulahiinas after they were exposed to various forms of severe punishment over a long period of time. During that long period, any defiance on their part led to suffering, and they were thereby psychologically conditioned to accept that they were in a weaker position and unable to resist their oppressors and tormentors.
In accepting their defeat and beginning to surrender, their deep fears became internalized in their psyches. What their predecessors learned as a result of attempting to confront their tormentors now became part of the psychological makeup of the succeeding generations.
Little by little, over a long period of time, these fears accumulated and, thereafter, they become almost normalized. It appeared normal to be docile, submissive and timid. They learned not to show anger in their expressions. Anger was so deeply suppressed that individuals were not always aware of how much anger they carried inside them. Their direct responses to situations that would otherwise cause anger or annoyance would be as if nothing has happened. They could even seem to be accepting their condition quite happily.
Those who are in this condition for a long time could characterized by others as very happy people, living in a continuous state of peace and tranquility, despite enormous difficulties. These onlookers may even describe them as a people with an enormous spiritual heritage that allows them to cope with tremendous suffering without complaining or showing any outward signs of dissatisfaction about their condition.
Thus, among the kulahiinas, a new kind of normal began to appear.
Their deep cowardice, which is a result of continuous suffering and failed retaliation, could appear as a kind of spiritual strength, strength of character, and even a kind of wisdom with which people cope with their lives. They became capable of accepting deprivation as if it was normal. Even in considerable deprivation, they continued to live as if nothing had happened. The onlookers would say, ‘Here are a people who have learned to live with little. Here are a people who have no avarice, no greed. They are happy with what they have and, if they don’t have anything, then they will bear it within themselves and will not make any trouble for others.’
It became an alien concept to demand anything as a matter of right. They may hear words like ‘rights’ and may sometimes show external enthusiasm for them, but these words do not touch them deeply. These discourses on rights remained something external.
Internally, such people cannot make up their minds to fight for any of their rights. This is partly because they do not know what it is to fight for something. Fighting for something is seen as dangerous, and the mechanism that tells them of this danger lies deep within themselves.
Such people look very pleasant. They may even be seen smiling all the time. They will be very cordial towards their oppressors. A person who imposes harsh conditions on them, and even takes away things that really belong to them, will not find significant resistance on the part of these people. They will give up things that they really need for themselves and don’t really want to part with, and will do so without a complaint. It may even appear that they are giving these things away as gifts.
When a people reach a state of such docility, they have internalized their weakness and their position. They would not be moved to get rid of the situation and become capable of asserting their rights in any convincing way. Externally, they may agree to such invitations, but internally they will find ways to reject such resistance.
The impact of caste on nation-building
The deep impact of caste-based psychological habits also impacts nation-building.
As Dr. Ambedkar said in a speech to India’s Constituent Assembly in 1949:
‘How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realizing the goal. The realization of this goal is going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national in the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.’
6 1 1 8
2 Comments for
“Conflict Between Caste And Human Dignity”
Malin
Feb 26, 2017 - 5:55 am
Good Essay. Sunday Leader promotes sometime good valuable articles on social matters.
Sangaralingham
Feb 26, 2017 - 10:44 am
Social disintegration is what caste is all about. Now it include races religion if numbers goes up in a society large number tend to exploit the so called smaller numbers do called minority that is democracy in many countries including SriLanka. There should be a veto rights if segment of society not happy with certain aspects of any policies. Caste system as we know deprive some well likeable politicians their rights to higher office get elected not appointed not promoted. There should be domething demanding the country to get rid of the do called caste which I am sure will met eith disapproval. World is changing sound education knowledge increase potential use of social media internet make things happen
Comments are closed
PHOTO GALLERY
IMG_0252International Day of Yoga celebrated in Sri Lanka
DSC_0522Muslims in Sri Lanka celebrate Eid festival
DSC_0153Celebrating the Prime Minister’s victory
P02 - Pic for Protest in JaffnaProtest in Jaffna against war in Syria
DSC_0124International Military Sport Council Day Run
DSC_0124Tasting victory again and looking for more
Sri Lankan office of Asian Human Rights Commission. Registered organization in Sri Lanka under the Company Registration Act of Sri Lanka (GA2302).
Sunday, July 19, 2020
Conflict Between Caste And Human Dignity- Published in Sunday Leader on 25 Feb. 2017.
Conflict Between Caste And Human Dignity
by Basil Fernando
To deny dignity to a human being is also to deny him equal status with others
India developed a unique master-servant relationship known as the caste system
The deep impact of caste-based psychological habits also impacts nation-building
A crowded street in New Delhi, India
The idea that human beings have an inherent dignity by the very fact of them being human is the most basic tenets recognized in modern societies. In feudal societies, there was distinction between those who had dignity (dignitas) and those who lacked it. With the modern democratic revolutions in France, England and the United States, the idea of dignity was generalized as an inherent quality of all human beings. All modern human rights declarations are based on this concept.
Human dignity and equality are ideas that are inseparably linked. To deny dignity to a human being is also to deny him equal status with others. Equality is also a modern concept. In almost all civilization, distinctions were made between those who had equal rights on the basis of equal status, and others. Even in Greek society, the slaves were not considered as being equal in status to those recognized as citizens. In Roman society, a distinction was made between free people and slaves, as well as between both of those groups and aliens. Around two centuries ago, the distinction between slaves and free people was recognized in almost all Western nations. In Russia, too, serfdom was not officially abolished until the mid-19th century. Similarly, various forms of slavery also existed in Asian societies.
India developed a unique master-servant relationship known as the caste system. It goes back into very early times in Indian history. It classified people into four categories according to their inalterable assigned value or worth, as determined by birth. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar named this classification as the grading of human beings. In making the new constitution of India, he mentioned that the constitution adopts modern notions of equality but, in real life, these distinctions still continue to exist.
Modern conceptions and the persistence of old psychological and social habits
The mere introduction of new notions about liberty, equality and fraternity through constitutions and laws does not automatically erase the deeply-engrained habits that have developed as a result of contrary notions and practices prevailing for over a thousand years. This is the problem that the South Asian nations face due to the caste system. The denial of dignity to a large section of the population has left deep psychological scars. These deeply-held beliefs about inferiority and a fear to assert themselves due to possible punishments continue in the minds of people. These cannot be erased by merely introducing new laws. They can only be erased through social practices that strongly affirm the dignity of everyone and creates a social environment within which old fears disappear and new self-confidence grows. People’s self-respect can only be raised when the social milieu is reorganized in terms of these new notions. If no such radical change takes place, old psychological habits of self-negation and diffidence continues.
This is the contemporary situation and it can only be understood when we try to grasp what the denial of dignity for thousands of years has done to those who suffered under those conditions.
Kulahiinas only learned to accept their status as kulahiinas after they were exposed to various forms of severe punishment over a long period of time. During that long period, any defiance on their part led to suffering, and they were thereby psychologically conditioned to accept that they were in a weaker position and unable to resist their oppressors and tormentors.
In accepting their defeat and beginning to surrender, their deep fears became internalized in their psyches. What their predecessors learned as a result of attempting to confront their tormentors now became part of the psychological makeup of the succeeding generations.
Little by little, over a long period of time, these fears accumulated and, thereafter, they become almost normalized. It appeared normal to be docile, submissive and timid. They learned not to show anger in their expressions. Anger was so deeply suppressed that individuals were not always aware of how much anger they carried inside them. Their direct responses to situations that would otherwise cause anger or annoyance would be as if nothing has happened. They could even seem to be accepting their condition quite happily.
Those who are in this condition for a long time could characterized by others as very happy people, living in a continuous state of peace and tranquility, despite enormous difficulties. These onlookers may even describe them as a people with an enormous spiritual heritage that allows them to cope with tremendous suffering without complaining or showing any outward signs of dissatisfaction about their condition.
Thus, among the kulahiinas, a new kind of normal began to appear.
Their deep cowardice, which is a result of continuous suffering and failed retaliation, could appear as a kind of spiritual strength, strength of character, and even a kind of wisdom with which people cope with their lives. They became capable of accepting deprivation as if it was normal. Even in considerable deprivation, they continued to live as if nothing had happened. The onlookers would say, ‘Here are a people who have learned to live with little. Here are a people who have no avarice, no greed. They are happy with what they have and, if they don’t have anything, then they will bear it within themselves and will not make any trouble for others.’
It became an alien concept to demand anything as a matter of right. They may hear words like ‘rights’ and may sometimes show external enthusiasm for them, but these words do not touch them deeply. These discourses on rights remained something external.
Internally, such people cannot make up their minds to fight for any of their rights. This is partly because they do not know what it is to fight for something. Fighting for something is seen as dangerous, and the mechanism that tells them of this danger lies deep within themselves.
Such people look very pleasant. They may even be seen smiling all the time. They will be very cordial towards their oppressors. A person who imposes harsh conditions on them, and even takes away things that really belong to them, will not find significant resistance on the part of these people. They will give up things that they really need for themselves and don’t really want to part with, and will do so without a complaint. It may even appear that they are giving these things away as gifts.
When a people reach a state of such docility, they have internalized their weakness and their position. They would not be moved to get rid of the situation and become capable of asserting their rights in any convincing way. Externally, they may agree to such invitations, but internally they will find ways to reject such resistance.
The impact of caste on nation-building
The deep impact of caste-based psychological habits also impacts nation-building.
As Dr. Ambedkar said in a speech to India’s Constituent Assembly in 1949:
‘How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realizing the goal. The realization of this goal is going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national in the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.’
6 1 1 8
2 Comments for
“Conflict Between Caste And Human Dignity”
Malin
Feb 26, 2017 - 5:55 am
Good Essay. Sunday Leader promotes sometime good valuable articles on social matters.
Sangaralingham
Feb 26, 2017 - 10:44 am
Social disintegration is what caste is all about. Now it include races religion if numbers goes up in a society large number tend to exploit the so called smaller numbers do called minority that is democracy in many countries including SriLanka. There should be a veto rights if segment of society not happy with certain aspects of any policies. Caste system as we know deprive some well likeable politicians their rights to higher office get elected not appointed not promoted. There should be domething demanding the country to get rid of the do called caste which I am sure will met eith disapproval. World is changing sound education knowledge increase potential use of social media internet make things happen
Comments are closed
PHOTO GALLERY
IMG_0252International Day of Yoga celebrated in Sri Lanka
DSC_0522Muslims in Sri Lanka celebrate Eid festival
DSC_0153Celebrating the Prime Minister’s victory
P02 - Pic for Protest in JaffnaProtest in Jaffna against war in Syria
DSC_0124International Military Sport Council Day Run
DSC_0124Tasting victory again and looking for more
A crowded street in New Delhi, India
The idea that human beings have an inherent dignity by the very fact of them being human is the most basic tenets recognized in modern societies. In feudal societies, there was distinction between those who had dignity (dignitas) and those who lacked it. With the modern democratic revolutions in France, England and the United States, the idea of dignity was generalized as an inherent quality of all human beings. All modern human rights declarations are based on this concept.
Human dignity and equality are ideas that are inseparably linked. To deny dignity to a human being is also to deny him equal status with others. Equality is also a modern concept. In almost all civilization, distinctions were made between those who had equal rights on the basis of equal status, and others. Even in Greek society, the slaves were not considered as being equal in status to those recognized as citizens. In Roman society, a distinction was made between free people and slaves, as well as between both of those groups and aliens. Around two centuries ago, the distinction between slaves and free people was recognized in almost all Western nations. In Russia, too, serfdom was not officially abolished until the mid-19th century. Similarly, various forms of slavery also existed in Asian societies.
India developed a unique master-servant relationship known as the caste system. It goes back into very early times in Indian history. It classified people into four categories according to their inalterable assigned value or worth, as determined by birth. Dr. B. R. Ambedkar named this classification as the grading of human beings. In making the new constitution of India, he mentioned that the constitution adopts modern notions of equality but, in real life, these distinctions still continue to exist.
Modern conceptions and the persistence of old psychological and social habits
The mere introduction of new notions about liberty, equality and fraternity through constitutions and laws does not automatically erase the deeply-engrained habits that have developed as a result of contrary notions and practices prevailing for over a thousand years. This is the problem that the South Asian nations face due to the caste system. The denial of dignity to a large section of the population has left deep psychological scars. These deeply-held beliefs about inferiority and a fear to assert themselves due to possible punishments continue in the minds of people. These cannot be erased by merely introducing new laws. They can only be erased through social practices that strongly affirm the dignity of everyone and creates a social environment within which old fears disappear and new self-confidence grows. People’s self-respect can only be raised when the social milieu is reorganized in terms of these new notions. If no such radical change takes place, old psychological habits of self-negation and diffidence continues.
This is the contemporary situation and it can only be understood when we try to grasp what the denial of dignity for thousands of years has done to those who suffered under those conditions.
Kulahiinas only learned to accept their status as kulahiinas after they were exposed to various forms of severe punishment over a long period of time. During that long period, any defiance on their part led to suffering, and they were thereby psychologically conditioned to accept that they were in a weaker position and unable to resist their oppressors and tormentors.
In accepting their defeat and beginning to surrender, their deep fears became internalized in their psyches. What their predecessors learned as a result of attempting to confront their tormentors now became part of the psychological makeup of the succeeding generations.
Little by little, over a long period of time, these fears accumulated and, thereafter, they become almost normalized. It appeared normal to be docile, submissive and timid. They learned not to show anger in their expressions. Anger was so deeply suppressed that individuals were not always aware of how much anger they carried inside them. Their direct responses to situations that would otherwise cause anger or annoyance would be as if nothing has happened. They could even seem to be accepting their condition quite happily.
Those who are in this condition for a long time could characterized by others as very happy people, living in a continuous state of peace and tranquility, despite enormous difficulties. These onlookers may even describe them as a people with an enormous spiritual heritage that allows them to cope with tremendous suffering without complaining or showing any outward signs of dissatisfaction about their condition.
Thus, among the kulahiinas, a new kind of normal began to appear.
Their deep cowardice, which is a result of continuous suffering and failed retaliation, could appear as a kind of spiritual strength, strength of character, and even a kind of wisdom with which people cope with their lives. They became capable of accepting deprivation as if it was normal. Even in considerable deprivation, they continued to live as if nothing had happened. The onlookers would say, ‘Here are a people who have learned to live with little. Here are a people who have no avarice, no greed. They are happy with what they have and, if they don’t have anything, then they will bear it within themselves and will not make any trouble for others.’
It became an alien concept to demand anything as a matter of right. They may hear words like ‘rights’ and may sometimes show external enthusiasm for them, but these words do not touch them deeply. These discourses on rights remained something external.
Internally, such people cannot make up their minds to fight for any of their rights. This is partly because they do not know what it is to fight for something. Fighting for something is seen as dangerous, and the mechanism that tells them of this danger lies deep within themselves.
Such people look very pleasant. They may even be seen smiling all the time. They will be very cordial towards their oppressors. A person who imposes harsh conditions on them, and even takes away things that really belong to them, will not find significant resistance on the part of these people. They will give up things that they really need for themselves and don’t really want to part with, and will do so without a complaint. It may even appear that they are giving these things away as gifts.
When a people reach a state of such docility, they have internalized their weakness and their position. They would not be moved to get rid of the situation and become capable of asserting their rights in any convincing way. Externally, they may agree to such invitations, but internally they will find ways to reject such resistance.
The impact of caste on nation-building
The deep impact of caste-based psychological habits also impacts nation-building.
As Dr. Ambedkar said in a speech to India’s Constituent Assembly in 1949:
‘How can people divided into several thousands of castes be a nation? The sooner we realize that we are not as yet a nation in the social and psychological sense of the world, the better for us. For then only we shall realize the necessity of becoming a nation and seriously think of ways and means of realizing the goal. The realization of this goal is going to be very difficult – far more difficult than it has been in the United States. The United States has no caste problem. In India there are castes. The castes are anti-national in the first place because they bring about separation in social life. They are anti-national also because they generate jealousy and antipathy between caste and caste. But we must overcome all these difficulties if we wish to become a nation in reality. For fraternity can be a fact only when there is a nation. Without fraternity, equality and liberty will be no deeper than coats of paint.’
6 1 1 8
2 Comments for
“Conflict Between Caste And Human Dignity”
Malin
Feb 26, 2017 - 5:55 am
Good Essay. Sunday Leader promotes sometime good valuable articles on social matters.
Sangaralingham
Feb 26, 2017 - 10:44 am
Social disintegration is what caste is all about. Now it include races religion if numbers goes up in a society large number tend to exploit the so called smaller numbers do called minority that is democracy in many countries including SriLanka. There should be a veto rights if segment of society not happy with certain aspects of any policies. Caste system as we know deprive some well likeable politicians their rights to higher office get elected not appointed not promoted. There should be domething demanding the country to get rid of the do called caste which I am sure will met eith disapproval. World is changing sound education knowledge increase potential use of social media internet make things happen
Comments are closed
PHOTO GALLERY
IMG_0252International Day of Yoga celebrated in Sri Lanka
DSC_0522Muslims in Sri Lanka celebrate Eid festival
DSC_0153Celebrating the Prime Minister’s victory
P02 - Pic for Protest in JaffnaProtest in Jaffna against war in Syria
DSC_0124International Military Sport Council Day Run
DSC_0124Tasting victory again and looking for more
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment