‘Society need not be casteless, but must be inclusive’

Caste defines the identity of a class of citizens who have been subjected to discrimination and stigmatisation just because of their birth in a certain community, justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said on Tuesday as the senior Supreme Court judge stressed that an inclusive society, and not a casteless one, is the solution.

Caste defines the identity of a class of citizens who have been subjected to discrimination and stigmatisation just because of their birth in a certain community, justice Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud said on Tuesday as the senior Supreme Court judge stressed that an inclusive society, and not a casteless one, is the solution.

HT Image

Justice Chandrachud was delivering the inaugural address for the Office of Diversity and Inclusion at IIT-Delhi when the judge expressed his views that he did not see caste elimination as a solution to caste discrimination.

“This whole theme that caste must be eliminated is very often perceived to be a theme which the upper caste propagates because it is the upper caste that believes that caste is one of the most pernicious features of our Indian society. Talk to people who have been subjected to discrimination, stigmatisation and to assault on grounds of caste; caste defines their identity and every day, they are reminded of their caste by the perpetrators of those who practice discrimination against them on the grounds of caste,” said the judge while interacting with the students.

He added that the true answer, in his opinion, is to not make a casteless society but to enable and empower those who have been subjected to centuries of discrimination.

“The answer to that must lie in our being aware of the extent of discrimination on grounds of caste which is still perpetrated in our society. We must come face to face with that discrimination that still permeates and pervades our society and to find justice for those who are discriminated against on grounds of caste. That is far more important than anything else,” emphasised Justice Chandarchud.

Responding to a question on drawing a balance between merit and upliftment, the judge maintained that the two should not be treated in a dichotomy and that the need of the hour is to redefine merit.

“There is an underlying assumption that upliftment and merit are two ends of a conflicting spectrum... That if you have to uplift, you have to sacrifice merit. If you have to emphasise merit, you have to ignore upliftment. I have a problem with this paradigm,” he said.

According to Justice Chandrachud, balancing upliftment and merit requires redefining merit and taking into account much more than scores in an entrance test. “How can you only define merit in terms of test scores and entrance tests? Would someone who does much better in the CLAT (Common Law Entrance Test), will it define the potential of the student in becoming a responsible citizen or to contribute better to society 15 years down the line?” underlined the judge, adding it is important to redefine the notion of merit.

“Inclusion has a positive role in defining merit. When we redefine merit in terms of an inclusive and plural society, we will speak of true upliftment,” he said.