Today is Zero Discrimination Day. And certainly, we will all agree that every day should be Zero Discrimination Day. But one guesses that the point of observing the day is to foreground the existing discrimination so that it ends. The focus, this year is on the urgent need to take action against discriminatory laws. Discrimination can be actively perpetrated by individuals and the State in the way they conduct themselves with those who are marginalised, and it can also be actively perpetuated by not doing what the State is duty bound to do.
In the context of this year’s theme, it may be useful to scan some of the laws that continue to affirm caste-based discrimination in Goa. The Devasthan Regulation Act, which is the English translation of the Regulamento das Mazanias applicable in Goa, is one of them. It is rife with caste-based discrimination which is justified by construing the temples as privately owned, implying that, because the temples are private, no one can interfere in their functioning, and no ‘third party’ can claim rights. But the truth of the matter is that even private parties are expected to abide by the Constitution of India. Constitution-wise, no one can practise caste discrimination even in their home.
The Constitution of India is very strong not just on prohibiting discrimination based on caste, but on actively making amends for the casteism that has been perpetuated in the past in the name of the varna system, with positive discrimination, that is, special equitable provisions. But how the State reconfigures caste by circumventing these amazing constitutional provisions, through its legislation, is something that needs to be seriously looked at.
Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code speaks about what kind of cases civil courts are competent to try, and what kind of cases are excluded. By this provision, a suit for declaration by a member of caste not invited to a caste dinner, or suit against expulsion of a member from a particular caste, or a suit involving purely religious ceremonies, would not be a civil suit tryable by a civil court. While this may be seemingly progressive in that the Court does not have to burden itself with the internal schema of a particular caste, it actually becomes like the proverbial three monkeys who are supposed to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no ‘evil’, and, therefore, not look into such cases, and let them merrily continue functioning as they please because this is their private sphere.
So we see that casteism is reinforced by Section 9. There is a certain caste autonomy given to the castes (obviously applicable to upper castes) to function as they please. A grouping on caste lines has the right to own and manage property, and to sue in courts.
Thus caste groupings want to be considered as a group entity but a private group entity at that. The issue of an individual’s (read depressed caste’s) right to entry into a temple and into its sanctum sanctorum is seen from the ‘private’ lens, that is, if it is my house, you cannot assert your right to enter my house, and the logic that follows is that if it is ‘our’ temple, you cannot assert your right to enter our temple.
‘We’ own the temple and consequently the land, and therefore ‘you’ (meaning castes other than the ruling caste) live on our land, and have rights to this land, only at our mercy, and provided you continue to render the caste-based services we expect from you. Recognising that this is a way of reinforcing caste and a feudal relic, the Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958, was enacted to abolish this system. We have not yet an equivalent law reform in Goa.
Consequently, caste-based occupational slavery of being able to enjoy full tenurial rights to land only when the mahars beat the dhol (drum), continues under the garb of the Devasthan Act. So much so that presumably the most needy targets of the Government’s Sansaad Adarsh Gram Yojana (2014) cannot get the benefits of the scheme. According to the response from the Panchayat of Ibrampur-Hankarnem to the residents of Harijanwada, the NOC for setting up the public infrastructure that the residents of Harijanwaddo have expressed their need for, is not given by the owner of the land, i.e. the local Devasthan, as the residents are not doing their traditional caste jobs. If that be so, what is the sense of this model village scheme, where casteism continues unabated? Another example is how politicians enlist support and draw political allegiance on the basis of caste. The two major cities of Goa, Panjim and Margao, are known to elect only Goud Saraswat Brahmins for the last about three decades.
And so, even when it comes to constitution of Internal Complaints Committees (ICC) in temples, under the purview of the Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013, the revenue authorities are quoted as saying that an ICC cannot be constituted because only males (and that too male descendants of the mahajans) can become mahajans and the ICC must comprise representation of women, and therefore such a Committee cannot be set up.
Further, even the much hyped Family Laws of Goa still have caste based distinctions. There is a chapter titled Usages and Customs of Gentile Hindus of Goa, which in fact provides under Article 13 that the dancing girls and the Bhavinas are permitted to adopt a relative belonging to their own caste only in the absolute absence of issue, and Article 27 which stipulates that the Hindu Brahmins shall always take oath on the book Shree Bhagwad Gita and the other castes on the coconut, betel, areca and rice.
How long will we continue to let casteism mar the intelligence of Goa?
(Albertina Almeida is a lawyer, human rights activist and an independent
researcher.)
