Jon Ungoed-Thomas claimed in the Sunday times this weekend1 that the long suffering “dalit” community in Britain faces alarming discrimination. To back this claim the journalist quotes Sir Anish Kapoor as the beacon of the Indian community and three members of the public who are stated in the article to be from the “dalit” community. Since the article was published there are just under 50 comments predominantly from non-Indian background people, assuming “caste” is prevalent in UK and must be as the article or Sir Anish describes.
So it is important to examine the veracity of the assertions in this article. The article states “dalit caste” people are “being taunted”, “abused” and “humiliated” by “higher caste” people in UK. If any people are being insulted, it is without a doubt wrong and in no way are we justifying any form of prejudice. But the examples in this article are all anecdotal presented with soundbites rather than researched or with properly referenced evidence. This in itself highlights that this article cannot be accepted at face value and more dangerously suggests a negative agenda against Hindus only rather than the altruistic purpose that Sir Anish Kapoor/the journalist purports to be advancing.
For example:
- “The British Dalit community is estimated at more than 50,000 people” who complain of an alarming array of discriminatory practices” that “have accompanied Indian migration to Britain” – this is a soundbite with no independent data to back up either the numbers or the assertions. It is however emotively loaded because how can anyone agree with even one discriminatory practice? Even worse, instead of responsible reporting which reflects both sides the outright accusation throughout the article, is that those who question the information, data or concept of caste discrimination in UK, are pursuing a political “right wing” agenda. What a real shame that the search for facts and a fair approach to the equality legislation by British citizens is being described as a right wing Hindu agenda!
- Reena Kumari is presented as one example of a “dalit” who has been discriminated against. It is claimed she was discriminated at school because of her surname which denoted her “dalit “ caste. “Kumari” however, is not a surname which anyone would be able to discern as Dalit and certainly no secondary school British-Asians would know what background a “Kumari” is ( even if it mattered to them!)The article further claims someone from a brahmin caste refused to take money from Reena’s hand which suggests that caste is discernible by surname or even just looks because how did Reena know this other person was a brahmin and how did the other lady know Reena’s caste? The story is flawed and plainly wrong so is not a reliable anecdote.
- Sudesh Rani, again someone with a non-identifiable surname to the vast majority of world (let alone British Asians) claims discriminatory abuse by two people in a shop but again it is implausible that just by looking at Sudesh or even knowing the surname anyone would know Sudesh is a “ravidassia” as caste is definitely not discernible by looks.
- Ram Lakha is also quoted referring to “glass ceilings” as if this a caste issue – Given that those appointing political position or peerages are predominantly not South Asian are the protagonists of this caste discrimination agenda suggesting that the “UK establishment” is also involved in this alarming practice? Moreover, a simple check against the names of South Asians in prominent positions would show that many communities are not necessarily represented. This does not mean that discrimination against other groups of south Asians is happening. HSS UK has worked with people from the Ravidassia community many of who are doing very well in society. We have also had the privilege of Ram Lakha’s presence at our events where he interacted with our members and no point was “caste” an issue so we are more than surprised at this representation but perhaps it suits the Sunday Times to only refer to some experiences and comment that justify their bias?
- The journalist makes many more factual mistakes – he states “Gandhi was a Kshatriya” and it is the “Kshatriya’s that are the untouchable class” – this highlights how subjectively people apply classifications – most historians state Gandhi as Baniya- which is Vaishya according to the journalist’s classification – so on what basis does the journalist refer to Gandhi as a Kshatriya and even more dubiously state that Kshatriyas are the untouchables? This is at the very best sloppy journalism. Comments made by most people who do not understand this issue show how dangerous this sloppy journalism is. Moreover the comments highlight how easy it is to create artificial judgements and impressions by using emotionally loaded ( but never correctly defined) phrases like “caste”, “dalit”, “untouchable”, “tribal” and “servant- class”.
- As parting shot to all Hindus the journalist gives a background of Sir Anish Kapoor as if somehow being a Turner prize winner and born in India to a Hindu father makes Sir Anish a great expert on Indian and Hindu diaspora! Interestingly, at no point does the article refer to “Sir” Anish Kapoor as belonging a privileged wealthy and knighted class, which no doubt gave his voice more prominence than the voice of ordinary people like those in our organisation who neither recognise nor want an acceptance or reference in legislation to the term “caste”.
Let us be clear our aim is equality. Any discrimination based on criteria other than merit is wrong and should and is challenged by Hindus. However, people should not be swayed by journalists, lobbyists or even knighted nobleman such as Sir Anish Kapoor who without proper evidence make incorrect statements and are predominantly claiming that discrimination is a Hindu issue!
As for those in the article that claim they were discriminated against, is it preferable to have “caste” an entrenched word with subjective notions of who is higher than the other or would we prefer to have true egalitarian society which means not having classifications which have to be artificially and arbitrarily defined? The definition is subjective as the article clearly shows because the journalist states “untouchables belonged to the Kshatriyas” and then later talks about the Adivasi as the “servant” class. So, we have in this article alone several different references to what “the dalit caste” is – or rather what the journalists perception of what that includes. It is not a perception which stands any scrutiny except to those who are either ignorant, easily misled or have an agenda against Hindus. This is an astonishing example of irresponsible journalism and we hope politicians and the public will not show the same level of laziness in considering this issue.
The Sunday Times has produced an opinion piece which rests upon false, misleading and the class of a “modern and progressive” who lacks any real authority to speak for the community he talks about. This is not news, it is a blight on real journalism….an irresponsible acceptance of Fake News!
*1. (17 September “Untouchables: Anish Kapoor backs Dalits discriminated against by British Hindus”)
