Nido Taniam's unfortunate death in a scuffle with local shopkeepers of Delhi awakened young India to yet another dimension of contemporary social life: racism. Delhi, which has been always the home to migrating populations of job or education seekers found itself in a conflict that threatened its status. After all if the Capital was not safe for a north-eastern student then which place in India was? Public outrage over the matter has led to another debate: Do we need an anti-racism law in India?
Unlike the US or Europe or South Africa its a difficult debate in India. In other countries all you have to bother about is Black-White interaction. A law that prevents discrimination on the basis of colour suffices. The maximum extension is to protect the original inhabitants of these regions (e.g. Red Indians of America, Aborigines of Australia, Gypsies of Germania etc).
In India, which has always been a melting pot for various races, ethnicities, languages and religions the issue is infinitely more complex and difficult to address. On the one hand India is essentially a very pluralistic and economy driven society so the discrimination is minimal in terms of participation and opportunity. On the other hand, however, Indians are quick to stereotype people by recognisable traits and these generally stick to social interactions. Strangely enough most Indians are not bothered by these unless they are being purposefully used to bother. Examples are: Mallu (Keralites/South Indians), Tambi (Tamil people), Kancha/Chinki (North Easterners and Ladakhis), Jugga (Sikhs that wear a turban), Bihari/Bhaiye/Pundar (people from Bihar and Uttar Pradesh) etc.
Now it needs to be noted that most of the above stereotypes are region specific in the sense that they are used in some regions by some people and in other places they are not used at all. Also most of them are used amongst friends (telling from my college experience) without anyone taking an offence. Also most of India's government jobs and educational opportunities have region-based quota so the question of discrimination does not arise. From all this we can conclude that what we are addressing to as the problem of racism is in fact the problem of general hooliganism wherein the element of racial stereotyping is added to annoy, ridicule or otherwise gain the upper hand in perfectly routine social squabbling.
So to answer the question: do we need an anti-racism law? I think the real question is: Will it help?
From my limited understanding of the matter I will say that it will be pre-mature to bring in such a law. Cases of such nature can be tried under existing laws and sufficient punishment be awarded to deter the culprit. The problem lies with the fact that this basic exercise is never done and therefore rule of law is flouted in India very blatantly. In such a scenario one law less or one law more will make no contribution to solving the problem. Moreover from what I have observed herein, drafting such a law is impractical because of the sheer magnitude and variety of the problems that will fall under this category. Impracticality must be avoided in legislation. In the heat of the moment (I am specifically referring to the case of Late Nido Taniam) it seems the right thing to do. However it will not curb the crimes. Nirbhaya Act seemed like the right thing to do after the horrific gang-rape, but an year (and a sensationalist's government) later nothing has actually changed. So if we all really want to prevent such things from happening then we must harp on the real issue: police and judicial reforms. This is my conviction.
No comments:
Post a Comment