It is high time to initiate a discussion on various discriminatory practices based on caste, class, religion and other privileges existing in our campus.There will be a large group who will not admit this reality. How ever, on closer inspection, there will be an evident overlap between those who do not acknowledge this discrimination and those who never faced it, because majority in our college come from a background that is not institutionally discriminated against.A student from privileged background may struggle to see its existence, but it is an everyday reality for many and it is grossly unfair to let the discriminating practices go unchecked and unquestioned. It is in this spirit that we write this article.
It is important to note the nature and style of discrimination to understand it better. It is true
and of great comfort that untouchability or caste-based violence are not common in our
campus. (Even though we would like to argue that it is not as if untouchability is entirely
absent. The norm of separate rooms and utensils are still followed by upper caste vegetarian
students. They don’t want their rooms to be “polluted” by a non-vegetarian.) However, the
invisible and indirect forms of prejudices are abound. Manifestation of these biases is subtle,
but it is no less humiliating. The muted character of these biases also makes it tougher to
showcase them in hard numbers, and indeed trying to grasp these experiences through crude quantitative measures will not yield an understanding which is vital to see how this process of discrimination actually functions. A little introspection, observation, and hindsight on the other hand will go a long way in helping to see the point.
Having established this, we have to note that any form of discrimination, whether it is based on caste, class, race, or gender is perpetuated through the creation of a hostile space. In our
college, an elite atmosphere is created which is less conducive for others to survive in. This is
achieved through different ways, some of which are discussed below-
Through our vocabulary;
We grow up with a vocabulary laced with intolerance and chauvinism, which we then carry to
our campus. If “chamaar” becomes the preferred adjective for describing the most despicable person, or features of African students are casually termed as horrifying, if an effeminate boy is derogatorily called “chakka”; if North-eastern students are labelled as "chinki" or someone "uncool” becomes synonymous with “gaav-waala/waali”, then there is clearly a problem. However, this has so completely become the norm that it is not even questioned. These are treated as silly jokes, and not as casteist or racist remarks as they should. We have so thoroughly internalized our prejudices that we don’t even recognize we are attacking a particular community while we are doing it. These words act as signboards of unacceptance towards marginalized sections.
By questioning the credentials;
An SRite is assumed to be smart and intelligent until proven otherwise. But the logic is reversed for a Dalit or OBC student. Teachers and students assume them to be less talented, to be unworthy students who got in to college only due to the mercy of reservations. Some even extrapolate this further and assume that reserved category students are generally lazy because they believe everything for them is served on a silver platter by the State.
A similar line of assumptions is extended about all state Board students (especially Tamil
Board). They are accused of capturing seats of otherwise “deserving” students, because it is
believed that the marks that they secure are inflated and incorrect.
This favoritism towards the North Indians, upper castes and elites is displayed not only through blatant remarks about the unfitness of Dalits/OBCs/Tamilians, which can be continuously heard in the canteen, co-op and other public spaces. This bias is in fact revealed in any normal classroom lecture. A student from an elite private school has the permit to make a care-free mistake in class. His/her entire school, place of origin or caste is not judged by that one mistake. However, if a Dalit student errs in giving an answer, it is immediately attributed to the ill effect of reservations, or if a South Indian student blurts out something inaccurate, it is thought to be because of flawed schooling.
This attitude ultimately puts non-elite and minority students in excess pressure. They are put under intense scrutiny and insecurity which makes them think twice before participating in any discussion, which effectively clamps down on the creation of a free atmosphere of learning. The liberty to uncaringly express oneself and consequently find opportunities to grow within the classroom is something that the privileged take for granted, but the marginalized have to work hard for.
By constant reminders of identity;
Only upper caste students can afford to forget their caste identity in campus like ours. Dalits
and minorities are constantly reminded of their identity every day. This is not only when they
ask for your second name specifically, but also through seemingly innocent cues.
To explain through an example; students enthusiastically discussing about the surgical strike by India and dissing Pakistan will alter their tone, and curb their reactions if they find a Muslim observing or entering the conversation . This simple change of tone reminds the Muslim of his/her religious identity, and the fact that Muslims are naturally assumed to be Pakistani sympathizers.
To give another example, if you are telling your SC/ST friend that he/she is not like other SC/ST students, he/she is intelligent and hardworking; you have to understand that it is not a compliment but a humiliation. You are equating your friend’s community to sub-par level of capability.
These incidences may seem harmless in isolation. But in conjunction with numerous other
similar incidents that happen every day, they can be overwhelming, and can solidify the feeling of alienation.
Image source- India Today
By not considering difference in opportunities hitherto;
Students in our college come from different schooling backgrounds, different levels of
exposure, have undergone different methods of teaching and so on. However, these
differences are not identified or acknowledged by teachers or fellow students when forming
expectations about what a student should be able to do. It might be possible that some
students have never done standard debating, group discussions or presentations in their
school. It is also possible that they don’t have experience working in societies before.
Therefore, their incapability to express themselves via standard public speaking forums used in our campus doesn’t imply that there is lack of ability itself. Instead of providing them with opportunities for learning, they are made to feel inadequate in their capabilities.
Also there are students who completed their schooling in Hindi or some other regional
language. It is not reasonable to expect everyone to be fluent in English speaking. Still, a highly biased and highly judgmental behavior is meted out to those who are unable to comfortably hold conversations in English from fellow students and teachers. Some teachers do not even answer doubts raised in Hindi, even when all present can understand Hindi.
In fact, English does not stop at only being a language barrier, because in our campus, it’s more than just a language. It is a status symbol and an entire culture in itself. Those who willingly, naturally speak in English are usually also those who follow English television series, movies, songs and the Western media, entertainment and lifestyle in general. They automatically connect more with, or are attracted towards those who follow similar tastes. The problem however, starts when this group not only rejects, but also ridicules those who don't fall into the same pattern of entertainment choices. English is then subconsciously used as a filtering mechanism while making friends in the class.
Rigid language preference for Hindi or English can only result in exclusivity. This problem and confusion can be addressed through a principle of opting for that language which facilitate maximum communication. For instance, as mentioned in our previous article about societies, if a society has non-Hindi speakers, preference should be given to English, or any other language which can be at least followed by all members. The status or coolness attached to the language should be disregarded as a criteria for selection of the language that is to be used.
While that is one point to ponder over, we have to see that overall, by not recognizing the
differences, by not providing a conducive atmosphere for learning by making mistakes, by not providing remedial classes and bridge classes, the gap between privileged and non-privileged widens systematically and never converges.
By creating exclusive spaces;
Friend circles in our campus develop while eating out together, partying together, going for a trip together, and working in societies together and so on. A student from a low income
background will not be able to afford fancy restaurants, boozing in night clubs, or 3-star hotels trips. We have also previously discussed how societies systematically segregate students based on their background, and how often being part of a society also translates into conforming to certain lifestyle choices. The non-privileged generally tend to opt out of this socializing circle. The consequence of this is that a clear division occurs in the type of friend circles in our college; those who choose to be a part of the elite culture, and those who don't. In some cases, however, students even spend beyond their ability in the fear of missing out. This creates a financial mental pressure. This in fact, is also the biggest and most constant reminder of one’s income class.
It is of significance that it is not only the finances that become the sole reason for non-elites to not participate in elite activities. Elitism is anyway never measured in monetary terms. Even if non-elites find these activities affordable, they may not be comfortable or familiar for them. One might say that college is the time to experiment, but experimenting comes into the picture only if there is a choice involved. If adaptation to these uncomfortable ventures is the only way non-elites can gain acceptability, then the choice is very much lost. The fact is that there are no alternative platforms where everyone can interact and work together (clearly class rooms fail to be that space of interaction), which results in a situation where people who can’t access these elite spaces fail to curate friendships with the majority and are left with a very restricted circle of friends.
By creating exclusive discussions;
SRCC, a seemingly liberal campus, gives space for only specific understandings and ideas, and is mostly closed to any other perspectives. The topics of discussions are carefully chosen so that no uncomfortable talks take place, and no unpopular opinions spring up.
Discussions on caste, for instance, will always be about reservations and how undeserving
people abuse this provision. This may extend to caste appeasement or vote bank politics also. How caste discrimination works within the college walls itself, however, is lent a deaf ear. Then the discourse on poverty will be excruciatingly patronizing and sympathetic. Discussions around women empowerment also betray a non-neutral standpoint- the very people who demands choice in dress should not determine character of a girl, assumes any woman donning a hijab to be oppressed. Feminism is also only for the elite woman in the campus.
Thus there are fixed ideals to be discussed, and the general points of discussions are also fixed. If there is an alternative perspective presented, generally the discussions end abruptly. Sometimes, the fear of offending also stops people from discussing sensitive topics.
All the above factors create an imaginary wall between the elite and non-elite students of SRCC. The space is always awkward, unwelcoming and lonely for the non-elites, and the fact that there are only few of them makes them even more isolated and alienated. They lack a sense of belongingness in the college. They either desperately try to imitate the majority culture and hide their identity, something at which many a times they fail, or stop engaging with the college altogether. We can clearly observe how Dalit and Muslim students have systematically lesser attendance than others. They therefore also underperform in academic and extracurricular activities, and their level of confidence is badly hit due to the frequent experiences of intolerance, which just further hamper their chance of surviving the college. All this has serious consequences for their confidence and emotional well-being, some of which may last a lifetime. In fact, such hostilities present in the seat of higher learning (a place which is supposed to be the temple of personal growth) when left unchecked, grow to magnitudes which can result in "institutionalized murders" such as those of Rohith Vemula, or Dr. Payal Tadvi.
The fact is that this barrier between elites and non-elites is engineered by the country’s societal setting in general, which disallows for familiarity and exposure between different socio-economic backgrounds from a very young age. The elite and non-elites virtually interact nowhere in their life. They attend different schools, live in different ghettos and follow a different lifestyle. It becomes natural to feel connected to the only type of people you have ever been with. Our campus practices are nothing but an output of a segregated living throughout the life of our students.
Though written in context of SRCC, the scenario is not particular to SRCC. It is prevalent in other DU colleges and higher educational institutions in general. Even though the listed points are not exhaustive and not perceived in the same degree by different people, we hope this write-up will urge more discussions and analysis of systematic alienation of those who are minorities and/or marginalized in our campus.
Thus there is a lot to be learned, and there is a lot to be unlearned. However, the important fact is that it is not impossible to do so. Spaces of interaction can be, and should be built in the campus so that people are not forced to ape others in order to feel a sense of belongingness. We need to make sure that social identities do not become social stigmas or burdens for the ones carrying them. Only if we recognize these issues and gather the consciousness and conviction to deal with them on a daily basis, can we turn our campus into a truly free space which empowers and enables all cultures/backgrounds. It will be a slow process, but it has to start somewhere, and it has to start now.
This is why we have come together to create this shared space of 'Campus Perspectives' so that a beginning is created in this direction, no matter how small, and no matter how restricted the medium.We hope more people join us, and we hope these discussions spill over to their counterparts inside the campus. We earnestly hope for more people to come together to take positive steps regarding these issues, for we believe that banding together is the most powerful propeller of change. Indeed, few things compare in strength to the power of a common will and shared purpose.
Click below to read related news to this article-
wonderful, thoughtful post!!