a new form of untouchability

Recently, a video purportedly showing villagers of Chhattisgarh’s Surguja district taking an oath to implement economic boycott of Muslims went viral on social media. This was not a spontaneous reaction of the villagers to the dispute in the village, but was allegedly created by a Hindutva organisation.

The Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) is known to distribute pamphlets calling for economic boycott of those whom it labels “anti-national, anti-Hindu, love jihadis” – to deliver a communal message All convenient contexts. These acts are not mere ‘expressions of hatred’; They can be described as the emergence of a new form of untouchability guided by the political imperatives of Hinduism rather than the religious orders of Hinduism. To put an end to this hatred, a progressive re-expression of the concept of untouchability or a re-reading of the anti-discrimination law is necessary.

The hierarchical caste-based Hindu social system was governed by the ideology of purity and pollution. The primary function of the ideologue was to maintain the ritual hierarchy. Untouchability was a mechanism through which power was exercised over the Dalits and the hierarchy was strengthened. One of the most common forms of untouchability was the social and economic boycott of Dalits if they dared to violate social norms or exercise their rights. In Ambedkar’s opinion, the method of boycott was more effective than open violence. Collective discrimination, marginalization and disempowerment were justified as the right of the individual to choose freely in the market. He argued that the boycott was effective for two reasons – one, the Dalits constituted a minority within the village; And two, they were economically weak and, therefore, dependent on the ‘upper’ castes. Therefore, outlawing this ‘tyranny of the majority’ was of paramount importance for their upliftment.

Limitations of anti-boycott laws

The struggle for the abolition of untouchability gained momentum during the freedom struggle. This struggle found its highest expression in the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14, 15 and 17 of the Constitution.

Although untouchability was abolished, its definition remained unclear. Even during the Constituent Assembly debates, it was argued that the scope of untouchability should be confined to practices relating to religion and caste, lest it be left open to undue tampering; However, the assembly voted against such a limited definition. Therefore, the limitation of untouchability under Article 17 has been opposed. While conservatives limit it to caste-based discrimination, progressives argue that it also includes other forms of untouchability. However, there is a general consensus that only those works which are inspired by the ideology of purity and pollution are considered within the realm of untouchability. These include social and economic exclusion.

In India, the mere provision of rights has proved insufficient to prevent marginalization due to the practice of untouchability and, therefore, the legislature and judiciary have had to enact and interpret special laws to that effect. Two laws that explicitly make social and economic boycott punishable are the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and the Maharashtra Protection of People from Social Boycott (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2016. However, the scope is limited to criminalizing both caste-based discrimination and exclusion.

an ineffective approach

Binding boycott or anti-untouchability laws to the principles of purity and pollution and limiting their scope to caste-centred boycotts render them ineffective to counter calls for economic boycott of Muslims. Hindutva is using pre-constitutional methods to power down a community. It is driven not by the purpose of maintaining a hierarchy of rituals but by the political imperatives of boycott. Its ultimate aim is to caste the Hindu identity. Such public calls for boycotts are a means of creating such an identity. Collective resolution to boycott Muslims reinforces their ‘other’ and re-emphasizes the VHP’s idea of ​​’Hindutva’; The reorganization of Hinduism based on caste hierarchy into a unified, ethnic whole, where the Dalit figure is replaced by the Muslim as the significant ‘other’.

These serious new developments need to be taken into account and such public calls for Muslim economic boycott require immediate politico-legal response as they are against the principle of fraternity enshrined in the Constitution. This can be done by a progressive redefinition of untouchability or by expanding the scope of anti-boycott laws to include discrimination against religious communities.

Anshul Trivedi is a member of Congress. Twitter: @ansultrivedi47