Confrontations with the issue of caste are unavoidable in rural India. This insidious social hierarchy has oppressed millions of Indians for hundreds of years. Brahmins, those traditionally considered priests and preachers sit atop this foul social order. Kshatriyas, or kings, warriors, and soldiers come next. Below them are the Vaishyas, society's merchants and traders. Sitting at the bottom are Shudras, those tasked with performing society's most menial tasks. At the bottom of the Shudra caste are the so-called Untouchables (Dalits), those who society considers outcastes. They are the ones who have historically been charged with the task of cleaning toilets and pit latrines with their bare hands, and are forced to live on the outskirts of villages and towns throughout India.
Unfortunately, the aforementioned stratification functions as something far worse than just a division of labor. As Dr. Ambedkar -- a Dalit intellectual who wrote India's constitution -- put it, India's caste system is a division also of laborers. Those living near the bottom of this ladder without rungs are keenly aware of the fact that they are still above someone else.
My team and I experienced a manifestation of this tragic reality just the other day. As a part of our effort to end open defecation in rural India, we build individual household latrines (IHHLs) along with community sanitation facilities. We enter cost sharing agreements with families interested in building IHHLs. We put in 10,000 INR while the family contributes 2,000 INR. Once toilet construction is complete, paperwork is completed and submitted to the government so that the family can be reimbursed its 12,000 INR (through the government's Clean India Campaign), of which, 10,000 INR is returned to us. We recently entered into this cost sharing agreement with a so-called Untouchable family. On the first day of construction, we asked one of our regular laborers to head over to this family's home to start digging the foundation. He refused, on account of the fact that the family receiving the service is considered Untouchable. It should be noted that the laborer in question is by no means a member of any of India's higher castes. His family belongs to the caste that, in the olden days, hoisted palanquins to transport kings and queens.
The fact that our laborer acted in the way he did should not come as a surprise. In speaking with his older brother, it became apparent that his family has avoided interactions with those artificially labeled as lower than them for generations. In considering this, along with the exigencies of social pressures imposed by priests and others in the community, the ideological outcome demonstrated by our laborer makes sense.
There are two conclusions I'd like to draw from this. First, we must assault this social pressure. For too long, those perched atop India's social order have leaned on rhetoric and violent actions that function to oppress millions, all for the purpose of preserving caste. Dialogue at the societal level must be egalitarian in nature. Prime Minister Modi, unfortunately, is a culprit in the perpetuation of India's social order. In 2007 he published a book in which he commented on why Dalits clean toilets. He said,
At some point of time, somebody must have got the enlightenment that it is their duty to work for the happiness of the entire society and the Gods; that they have to do this job bestowed upon them by Gods; and that this job of cleaning up should continue as an internal spiritual activity for centuries.
A response to this oppressive train of thought -- as pointed out by Subhash Gatade -- was inked centuries ago by Voltaire who said,
Oh! Mockery to say to people that the sufferings of some brings joy to others and works good to the whole. What solace is it to a dying man to know that from his decaying body a thousand worms will come into life.
There should be no tolerance for anyone who suggests that only one group of people -- particularly a group marginalized throughout history -- should perform a particular task. Justifying this sentiment by saying that this task, in this case toilet cleaning, is one of great importance and national pride is incredibly patronizing.
Second, dialectical pedagogy must be employed to try to reverse the effects of socialization. We did not fire our laborer because doing so would have prevented any opportunity for meaningful conversation that could ultimately lead to a change in heart. To lean on socialization as an explanation for this particular individual's behavior strips him of his agency, which was used to construct this particularly harmful outlook, but more importantly, which could be used to alter his perspective. The importance of engaging in meaningful dialogue with the explicit purpose of imagining and creating an India free of the scourge of caste cannot be overstated.
There is no development of rural India without the contemporaneous agitation for social reform. Leaning on the example of toilets, how can every Indian own a toilet if members of the lowest castes are the poorest Indians? How can every Indian own a toilet if members of the lowest castes are the most likely to be landless? How can every Indian own a toilet if laborers refuse to even enter the homes of low caste Indians when called upon to build toilets? With continued oppression, marginalization, and violence towards members of low caste communities, efforts to "develop" rural India will fall flat. More importantly, the struggle to dismantle caste is to struggle for the creation of an egalitarian India.