Indian Instincts

in favour of ‘multiple modernity’ even considered Taliban-like forces modern because they were contemporaneous and used sophisticated machines. He thought that true modernity must be measured by people’s values towards equality in society. According to him, modernity was about how people related to other people. And he felt that the caste system—even though it has been largely dismantled⁷—had left its legacy of extreme inequality embedded in us. He showed me what he had written in his book:

The caste theory of personhood is extremely biological . . . It holds that substances routinely expelled from a person’s body are polluting and dirty, even to the person concerned . . . There is some similarity between this and racism, but . . . in a racist society, there is no stricture that forbids a white person from engaging a black cook.⁸

Indeed, because the basis of the stratification of Hindu society (about 80 per cent of the Indian population today) as illustrated by the caste system was so biological that the remnants of it have percolated down to the core belief systems that exist even today. Now, they are manifested in our attitude towards ‘dirt’ and all those we consider ‘dirty’. It is worth mentioning here that the list of people we Indians consider dirty is stupefying: menstruating women, sick persons, widows, sweepers, people who have been assigned a lower caste at birth and so on. I have written in an earlier chapter of this book about our practice of equating socio-economic inferiority with the physical state of being ‘dirty’.⁹

The toilets in the Chhattisgarh villages I visited were perhaps an extension of the notions of ‘pure’ and ‘dirty’ in the caste system, which is also manifest in our values. We consider ourselves ‘pure’, and there is always someone from a different community, or a person perceived as being lower down the social or economic hierarchy who is considered ‘dirty’. And from this inferior or dirty person we must keep a physical distance. As Gupta noted, such a physical separation among people based on perceived biological inequality is unique to India.

‘In traditional India, “high” castes could demand services from “low” castes because of their superior material and physical resources. This exploitation is explained in Hindu texts as being ordained by the gods,’¹⁰ wrote Gupta.

Today, there are a number of reasons for a large chunk of India’s population to uphold rather than abolish the inequalities in our society.

First, for an individual to be perceived as ‘higher’ in the social hierarchy, many others must be perceived to be ‘below’ this individual. And so, instead of acquiring social respect through accomplishments, it is easier to gain a high social status by merely allowing the existing system of abject inequality to continue.

Second, the profitability of businesses in India often depends on accessing cheap labour from the poor, and the high spending power of the wealthy. I will write about this in greater detail in a later essay in this book, but for now, it suffices to point out that business too flourishes in India if inequality continues.¹¹

Third, inequality works to maintain the family structure in India. As I wrote earlier, typical arranged marriages last in India often because they are based on the principle of inequality. The bride-taker is considered superior to the bride-giver, and so the groom (and his family) can drive the marital relationship mostly unilaterally.¹² Once the all-important ceremony of kanyadaan, which literally means ‘donating the bride’, is completed by the father of the bride, the groom and his family can take charge of the couple’s life. Thereafter, a woman is considered to be abounding with ‘good values’ when she unquestioningly subjugates herself to her husband. Why should subjugation to the groom and his family be a sign of good values? This is so firstly because this means that the bride relinquishes her individual beliefs to those of the new family’s—not because of love or influence or habit (she barely knows the groom or his family yet), but because she knows that she is supposed to uphold group values, whatever those may be, over her own. Secondly, subjugation would mean that the bride will not rebel against the groom and his family’s wishes, which is indicative of stability in the marriage.

Fourth, democracy and elections give the impression of providing a fair representation of people in Parliament and in the government, but both politics and governance here are riddled with nepotism. The poor in urban and rural India have neither the voice nor the will to oppose the drops of patronage coming their way, which, as I mentioned earlier, in the absence of any social security in the country, are a life support to many.

So, who would want to change the current ethos of inequality in India? For reasons like status, self-esteem, stability, profitability and power, Indians are dependent on those considered socio-economically inferior. Many middle-class and elite Indians therefore have hardly any incentive to dismantle the inequality in relations among people in India today. Our politicians cannot win elections without wielding power over their minions. Businesses need the poor for increasing profits. On the other hand, the absence of social security provided by the government means the poor need to preserve at least the lifeline of their ‘superior’ benefactors. Even the family unit is held up by marriages based on inequality.

All this has led to a society in India that is riding on the steam of inequality.

The deep rifts between the various socio-economic strata have created an aggressive environment for all of us to live in. ‘Modern’-looking technologically savvy hospitals treat patients from poor backgrounds contemptuously. Our police forces do not feel the need to speak respectfully to a person from a humble background. Companies invest in the most modern production machines, but ill-treat their employees. In fact, so ingrained is the value of inequality in our society that the current social, economic and political systems cannot do without it.

This is why I argue that inequality is the most dominant influence on individual beliefs.

This does