Of castes, tribes and communities
- Hueiyen Lanpao Editorial :: June 25 2015 -

There are numerous problems posed by the reservation policy in India which stems from the social fact that the Caste system is based on predetermined categorization of the oppressed and the oppressor.

With the idea of ameliorating the oppressed castes, the State had taken upon itself the task of not only protecting the lower castes but also empowering them.

While the rationale for “positive discrimination” has been considered progressive keeping in view the obligation to emancipatory politics, the over generalization of certain concepts and categories which are dominant in the mainland’s social structure seems to fall flat in conflict ridden areas of the Northeast region in the post independent period.

This becomes even more evident in a State like Manipur where the there are indigenous communities put under the “Scheduled” and non-scheduled lists.

The stereotyping of the Meetei society in the image of mainland Hindu ethos and practices has also manufactured two non-existent categories of the perpetual oppressor and the oppressed.

While there has been a tendency to identify Meeteis with the first category, all other “non-Hindu” communities are shown as the oppressed by virtue of skewed measuring of contemporary conditions.

Such issue has been politicised by few who have inherited the politics of divide and endorsed by the “ignorant others”.

The Northeast seems to have an altogether different social experience and dynamics.

The presupposition that caste discrimination exists in all parts of India for centuries has had its share of discomfiture with social analysts and academics.

A closer scrutiny of the socio-economic history reveals dynamics quite different from the type of caste based discrimination that still exists in mainland India.

This is precisely why the notion of “caste” and “tribe” in the Northeast needs an objective inquiry to correct the pervasive concept of discrimination.

The flaw in manufacturing “Scheduled Castes” and “Schedule Tribes” in the Northeast comes not out of an inclusive imagination but from the misrepresentation of social facts.

Caste division, particularly in Manipur valley, though they follow the Brahmin and the non-Brahmin demarcation, are very different from the rest of the country both in their structure as well as their operation.

Since the advent of Hindusim in Manipur in its distinct localised form, there had been a tendency to superimpose the assigned status of the Kshatriya Caste status on the Meeteis.

However, the conferred Hindu gotras have failed to dissociate the Meeteis from their identification with clan lineages.

Here, it should be reminded that the notion of “purity and pollution” was brought into play as an operational device to maintain Brahmanic caste hierarchy.

Not only caste, but also the category of “Scheduled Tribe” is equally problematic in the form that has been applied so far in Manipur.

This is why there has been a difficulty in homogenising the categories – “Scheduled Tribe” and “Scheduled Caste” or “General Category” and presenting them as being mutually exclusive.