Caste in Stone: The dirty little secret you ought to know

The ethnic conflict in the North and East has quite understandably drawn much attention away from many of the other social evils which perpetuate in this country. While there is still much activism against drug abuse, pedophilia and domestic violence, a field trip to Hambantota sometime back, revealed to me a stark reality which I still struggle to cope with.The caste system of Sri Lanka is thought by many to be a bygone of the past. However, it occurred to me that the system, rather than ‘no longer existing’, is now merely ‘swept under our carpets’.

My assignment in Hambantota related to evaluating an NGO which worked with beneficiaries at the grass root level. The work, as is observed in many grass root level organizations, was admirable and sincere, and in most cases changed the lives of the beneficiaries. The anti-NGO sentiment we all consider as the general consensus amongst rural folk is in my experience almost non-existent. This sentiment is rather a product of the local administration which struggles to cope with the needs of poverty stricken families, and resents the dependency placed on these organizations. However, as the assignment took me deeper into the inner workings of this support system, I observed a tiny anomaly. There were cases of mysterious discrimination which were not on ethnic or religious lines.

Due to professional commitments, I cannot publish the details of the account. However, it was revealed to me that this discrimination was based purely on the caste to which individuals belonged. Such was the extent of this underground system, that the organizations that worked in these areas were forced to work within caste lines in order to reach their beneficiaries.

This is how it worked: the Government Agent is usually of a particular caste and has “obligations” towards assisting his own caste members. The local grass root level NGOs are usually desperate to gain access to beneficiaries and for this they need the cooperation of the local authorities. The GA then directs the NGOs to his own caste constituency, thereby ensuring the development of his own caste, a noble maneuver, no doubt. And finally, since the NGO’s mandate does not relate to the eradication of the caste system but rather deals purely with poverty alleviation, the organization reinforces the system by working through it.

Many foreign donor organizations are seemingly unaware of this system. However, the manner in which one must address this issue remains uncertain. On the one hand, we all agree that the archaic and notorious caste system is completely contrary to the concept of universal human rights. But on the other hand, we must cope with the issue of whether some good work is better than none.

Thank you for reading.

I have no problem with dark girls, but I would never date one

I have often been tempted to compare human beings to onions. They contain many layers but no real core. However, my experiences have taught me something entirely to the contrary. Thus the following critique is wholly applicable to the complexity of human opinion and indeed to my own long-held views.

We all have sentiments we do not wish to share in public due to the fact that they are politically incorrect. But we possess these sentiments nonetheless. Many people in Colombo have deep prejudices based on race, religion, class and surprisingly even colour. However, we carefully choose the forum in which we voice these prejudices.

The present era of seeking a politically correct method of expressing almost every single thought and opinion has posed a serious threat to the nature of individual conscience. This is due to the high level of hypocrisy that has crept into our language, usages and mediums of expression. A simple example will illustrate my point. The other day I read a rather interesting web-log posting on certain chauvinist remarks made in the university I studied in. As it turns out, these comments were made in private and were probably meant for a private audience. It seemed to have been made within the context of a safe haven for politically incorrect honesty, though this is only my personal reading on the anecdote. The question that arises however is whether or not individuals should be permitted to hold such prejudices.

True liberals would agree that individuals should be permitted to feel bias but not in any way be permitted to act on such biases. So let me make it very clear that this posting relates solely to bias contained in thought rather than in action. Where one draws the line and how one ascertains the point at which thought translates into action is open for debate. I also wish to clarify that I do not in anyway advocate public or institutionalized expression of prejudice. This posting is further limited to private individual opinions containing bias.

How many of us are truly unbiased? It is blatant hypocrisy for so-called liberals to point to other individuals who are openly biased within private circles, whereas they themselves hold on to certain prejudices which remain unexpressed.

Example: “I have no problem with dark girls, but I would never date one.” This is termed “preference” but is only labeled so to escape the reality that it is in fact bias against skin colour.

Example: “I have many burgher friends. They are all super buggers. But I will never want my sister to marry one of them.” Though not as clear cut as the previous example, this is another sentiment which is often accepted as “preference” as opposed to prejudice. However, it is founded on the preconceived notion that all your burghers friends are fun-loving and do not take life seriously enough.

So everyone possesses prejudices in some form or the other. We draw an invisible line amidst all these sentiments and divide them up based on a fictitious criteria we term “political correctness.”

Now think carefully. Who are we proposing to fool here? Every single one of us are lightening quick when it comes to judging chauvinist remarks, though men-bashing is looked upon with a certain sense of accommodation. We find statements containing Christ’s name acceptable as part of every day speech though cartoon depictions of the prophet Muhammad is seen as preposterous. To take the question overseas, African Americans calling one another by the term ”Nigger” is considered mildly amusing, while a white comedian using the same language would be considered a step towards slavery.

Who are we attempting to fool?

Here is where the misunderstanding may arise. As a writer, I do not in any way advocate censoring speech in order to prevent men-bashing, or using the Lord’s name in vain or even using the “N Word” amongst the Black community in the US. What I am advocating is an attitudinal change towards understanding that the expression of prejudice or couching views in politically incorrect terminology is in fact a more honest option than attempting to send it underground. This relates to widening the scope of tolerating bias opinions rather than widening the scope of intolerance towards prejudices.

I entirely disagree with the notion that intolerance is educative. It only seeks to condition the brain into believing that politically incorrect statements must be wrong.

Take a moment to think this through. Does one “cure” a MCP if he is informed that his sentiments are not going to be tolerated? The answer is no, due to the fact that he is not convicted about the ‘wrongness’ of his sentiments, unless he is conditioned into believing that the majority’s views must be the right ones. Instead the MCP must be permitted to perpetuate his comments until he, through his own life experience, is convinced he is wrong. There should be no attempt to reform his opinion. Rather, a mechanism to prevent him from acting on them (which includes publicizing them in a manner which infringes on the rights of others) should be established. It is crucial to appreciate the complex notion that each individual is entitled to believe that his views are correct, until he himself, void of social conditioning, ascertains for himself that his views are incorrect. If this process is not followed, then the logical sequencing follows that an MCP may in fact be correct and everyone else merely imposing their views on him.

So where is all this leading us to? Quite simple. It relates to the classic notion of taking your own plank out before attempting to clear the chip in your brother’s eye. Clichéd as it may sound, this is the exact problem we presently face in our society, and particularly Colombo’s blogsphere. We need to constantly question ourselves before passing judgement on the prejudices of others. After all, life is about choice. To choose is to prefer. To prefer is to be partial. There is no such thing as being politically correct. We can only assume to be politically correct, when all we are doing in reality is perpetuating a myth wrapped in hypocrisy.

Thank you for reading.