Caste discrimination in the UK- why is it an issue?

Ashwini Deshpande- whose surname indicates a Brahmin or Kayastha ancestry- has an article in 'the Wire' which begins thus-

On 24 July, the National Commission of Hindu Temples (NCHT), UK asserted thatthe “continuing use of the term ‘caste’ with reference to the Hindu community is a perpetuation of the colonial use of this term to falsely denigrate and divide the Hindu community in order to facilitate the evangelical conversion activities of the Anglican Church” (emphasis added). They argue that for Great Britain’s Equality Act (2010) to even consider recognising a person’s caste background as one of the reasons for unlawful discrimination constitutes “religious colonialism”. Which apparently means the following: “the replacement of heathen cultures and religions is as much if not more an act of genocide as the physical genocide, in that it seeks to destroy not only the fabric of a community, but the core psychological links with its ancestors and their spiritual and cultural knowledge. It is an act of emotional and intellectual violence of the most heinous kind, a crime which has no place in the 21st century …” (emphasis added).

Read the first statement again. The italicised part suggests that to think that the Hindu community is divided into castes is false and is a colonial construct.

Yes. This is the view of a British scholar named Dr. Prakash Shah who is a Reader in Law & Culture at Queen Mary University. This is a reasonable view. After all, a country which gets colonised must have been pretty crap- perhaps, at least to religiously minded people, because it had departed from whatever was its true and original ethos in its age of glory.

If this is true, then it logically follows that the meaning of the second statement is that the existing fabric of (Hindu) society, which encompasses their “spiritual and cultural knowledge”, is completely free of caste (the false category).

No. It logically follows that such Hindus who are free of 'colonial constructs' in their thinking don't make invidious distinctions of caste. Again, this is a reasonable view.

If this is the case, why does the author of the fascinating document “Caste, Conversion and a ‘Thoroughly Colonial Conspiracy’” identify himself as Pt. S.K. Sharma? “Pt.”, a short form for “Pandit”, as only those with knowledge of the caste system would know, is not a recognised or standard title in the UK. It denotes the caste of the author (Brahmin).

This is not true. Pandit is a recognised and standard title awarded by Indian educational institutions  supported by the Government of India. It may also be conferred upon a disciple who has reached an advanced stage in Yoga or some other such discipline regulated by Shastras. 

 Anybody at all, of any creed or ethnic origin, can gain this title. People with such a title are welcome to use it in England, though there is no requirement to have completed any particular course of instruction.

This is not a new development. Shyamji Krishna Varma was an orator in Sanskrit and thus honoured with the title of Pundit by the priests of Benares though his forefathers were agriculturalists or pursued other secular professions. Astrologers and Priests use this title if they are versed in Sanskrit and Jyotish Shastra and so forth. It is true that Kashmiri Brahmins are referred to as Pundits but they only use the title if they are astrologers or priests or Sanskrit scholars. Jawaharlal Nehru, it is true, was referred to as Punditji, but he was an educated man and, I suppose, the title was accorded to him on that basis.

The author is Indian and lives and works in India. Why does she think a person with the title of Pandit must be a Brahmin? No such limitation arises in India. By contrast, the surname 'Sharma' is probably the most common surname among descendants of Hindu priests, though it is by no means confined to such people

Why would a person, for whom caste was not a lived reality, something that he did not believe in, go through the trouble of adding an extra honorific, not required by law, if not to indicate his caste?

This Pandit acquired this extra honorific by reason of his religious knowledge and standing within his community. Such titles are awared by educational institutions financed and regulated by the Government of India. It is perfectly in accordance with British law to use such titles. They do not indicate caste. Indeed, the word Pundit has entered the English language as meaning a learned person in some specialised field. One may ask 'what are you a Pundit in?' and the answer may be 'I completed Language Pandit Tranining Course in such and such State. My speciality papers were Telugu & Sanskrit which I am now qualified to teach at Undergraduate level.'

Maybe because caste is not as false, dead, redundant or irrelevant as we would like to believe.

But anyone from any country or belonging to any creed can become a Pundit or Shastry in India or elsewhere.

Even in India, where there are daily reports of caste discrimination and atrocities and evidence of caste-based disparities is strong and compelling, caste denial, especially by those who are privileged by their caste status, is common.

In India, caste is recognised by law and is the basis of affirmative action. There are violent agitations, not to improve 'caste status' but to lower it so as to gain the benefits of reservations. Britain does not offer anything similar.

It is not surprising, therefore, that this denial is even stronger within the Indian community in the UK.

The Indian community in the UK does not want to get sued for frivolous reasons which British people would have no means of knowing were frivolous- as happened to a Pakistani, Muslim restaurant owner- by a cook who says he was sacked for caste discrimination. In that particular case, the tribunal found that the both the cook and the restaurant owner belonged to the same 'Arain' community. The fact that the owner's name was 'Choudhry' did not mean he belonged to a superior caste. Rather, Choudhry was a title, like Pandit, which did not denote caste.

Suppose I come to a party at your place, get drunk and try to kiss your wife. You punch me in the face.
I immediately charge you with a racially aggravated offence because you are an Iyengar whereas I am an Iyer. How on earth is a British bobby supposed to know that this is an absurd proceeding? You will spend thousands of pounds on barristers whereas I savour my vengance. Next time, you should just let me kiss your wife.

Many Indians in the U.K are business people or else own property which they rent out or hold senior positions with different sorts of organisations. Each and every one these people becomes vulnerable to prima facie absurd accusations of caste discrimination which, however, British police officers and lawyers will be obliged to take seriously.

Which is why it lobbied extensively to keep caste outside the purview of the UK Equality Law. While this law bans other forms of discrimination and in the initial Bill had decided to include caste as one of the axes along which discrimination could possibly take place, due to pressure from powerful Hindu groups, the final version of the law dropped caste. This means that the law does not outright ban caste-based discrimination (as it does other forms of discrimination), but instead adopts a “case law” method, where the remedy for caste-based discrimination would be shaped by successive court judgments, should victims choose to seek legal redress for discrimination. Given the time and costs associated with legal procedures, several victims of caste discrimination might never go to court.

Yes, so- according to existing Case Law- cooks can't sue restaurant owners for caste discrimination if they are sacked because customers don't like their foood. That's a good thing.

Suppose a Hindu restaurant owner employs me as a cook because he thinks I am a Brahmin and then discovers I am a Paraiah, and sacks me- could I recover damages? Yes. But I'd also get another job very quickly because cooks are greatly in demand. Indeed, the restaurant owner would soon go out of business if he acts so stupidly.

Diasporic communities and their beliefs But what if this is not an instance of caste denial?

This is the claim made by Dharmic Religious leaders. They say that hereditary castes do not exist in Scripture or the correct tradition. Through spiritual study and practice, such delusive ideas can be overcome.

What if, in fact, caste divisions are largely irrelevant in the Hindu and Sikh diaspora and that caste didn’t really leave the Indian shores?

 In that case, they may also have no need for spiritual instruction of a Dharmic kind.

What if migrants shed their caste, as well as their caste consciousness, as they boarded ships and planes? If indeed they did that, it would be admirable and brave.

Why? Did Ambedkar shed his caste consciousness when he embarked for America? Would it have been admirable and brave if he had done so

However, it is not apparent and certainly there is no evidence, that migrants necessarily shed their beliefs and practices as they leave their home countries; often the evidence points to the contrary.

In which case, they may need instruction in their traditional Religion which tells them that caste is a delusion.

It is often the case that diasporic communities try to recreate and maintain, in their adopted countries, key components of their lives from back home, which in the case of migrants from India, could very well include adherence to their own caste rituals and by implication, a continued awareness of their own caste as well as that of others.

However, their spiritual preceptors seek to help them overcome such delusions by clearly stating that there is no caste in dharmic religions.

This awareness could be benign, confined to rituals, festivals, language and food. But it could well go beyond that and exhibit the same discriminatory tendencies that are clearly seen in India.

How? In India one has to please Indian people. In Britain one has to please British people. That Arain cook was sacked not because other Arains did not like his food but because British people did not like it. If they want cream and sugar in their curry, smile and give it to them. If they want to fuck up their legal system such that any Indian can sue any company that employs another Indian for some bogus reason to do with caste discrimination, then, okay we have plenty of lawyers who can make money that way.
The reason the British Government consulted the Asian community on this issue is because the Brits don't want to fuck up their judicial system which actually contributes greatly to their  surplus on the invisibles balance.