EDUCATION: THE ONLY KEY TO DALIT PROGRESS

DR. BHALCHANDRA MUNGEKAR

VICE-CHANCELLOR

UNIVERSITY OF MUMBAI,

FORT, MUMBAI 400 032

“The backward classes have come to realize that after all education is the greatest material benefit for which they can fight. We may forego material benefits, we may forego material benefits of civilization, but we cannot forego our right and opportunities to reap the benefit of the highest education to the fullest extent. That the importance of this question from the point of view of the backward classes who have just realized that without education their existence is not safe.”[1]

- Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

INTRODUCTION

At the outset I express my deep sense of gratitude to VOD International for organsising this international conference on Dalit Human Rights. I also thank and pay compliments to the Communities of Ravidassias, Valmikies and Ambedkarites of UK, and the Dalit Solidarity, UK who are closely involved in cooperating in the organization of this conference. I am also thankful to the organisers for inviting me and giving an opportunity to express my views on some of the issues involved in Dalit Human Rights which, like you all, are close to my heart. Since the objective of this Conference is to draw attention of the international community towards the horrendous effects of the caste system and atrocities committed against the Dalits in India, I consider it my moral responsibility to come over here and participate in the deliberations of this Conference.

This is indeed a historical event, insofar as the objective of this conference is to spell out the agenda for future work to redress and find remedies for doing away with indignities and insult inflicted upon the Dalits.

In this context, I propose to concentrate on some of the issues relating to Dalit Education, because I am convinced that education is the surest and the soundest key to Dalit Progress. But before so doing, it would not be out of place if I say few things, by way of introduction.

Many a time untouchability in India and slavery in Europe are being compared with the understanding that untouchability is tolerable or less harmful than slavery. It is true that neither the slavery nor untouchability is a free social order, but as Dr. Ambedkar maintained, “If a distinction is to be made and there is no doubt that there is the distinction between the two, the test whether the education, virtue, happiness, culture, and wealth is possible within slavery or within untouchability.”[2] Dr. Ambedkar further argued “judged by this test it is beyond controversy that slavery is hundred times better than untouchability. In slavery there is room for education, virtue, happiness, culture or wealth. In untouchability there is none. Untouchability has none of the advantages of an unfree social order such as slavery. It has all disadvantage of a free social order.”[3]

But the following views of Dr. Ambedkar distinguish slavery from untouchability in a more profound manner. Dr. Ambedkar maintain as follows:

Slavery was never obligatory. But untouchability is obligatory. A person is permitted to hold another as his slave. There is compulsion on him if he does not want to. But untouchable has no option. Once he is born untouchable he is subject to all the disability of an untouchable. The law of slavery permitted emancipation. Once a slave always a slave was not the fate of the slave. In untoubality there is no escape. Once an untouchable always an untouchable. The other difference is that untouchability is an indirect and therefore worst form of slavery. A deprivation of a man’s freedom by an open and direct way is a preferable form of enslavement. It makes the slave conscious of his enslavement and to become conscious of slavery is the first and most important step in the battle for freedom. But if a man is deprived of his liberty indirectly he has no consciousness of his enslavement. Untouchability is an indirect form of slavery. To tell an untouchable ‘you are free, you are a citizen, you have all the rights of a citizen’, and to tighten the rope in such a way as to leave him no opportunity to realize the ideal is a cruel deception. It is enslavement without making the untouchable conscious of their enslavement. It is slavery though it is untouchability. It is real though it is indirect. It is injury because it is unconscious. Of the two order, untouchability is beyond doubt, the worst”. [4]

Is it possible for any sensible person, much less an intellectual to refute Dr. Ambedkar’s judgment on this distinction between untouchability and slavery and his considering untouchability worse between the two?

The other issue I want to touch upon relates to the economic impact of the caste system on Dalits.

The caste system would have not perpetuated for centuries only through subjective prejudices and the idea of pollution. One of the most formidable factors

that provided the enduring strength to the caste system was its solid economic foundation. Again, what needs to be emphasised, economic aspects of the caste system were sanctified by the Hindu religious scriptures and, like ever other form of social discrimination, they were also deeply internalized.[5]

Thus, caste played an ascriptive role inasmuch as it allocated economic activities to different individuals. It is true that division of labour has been a characteristic feature of every human society even in its very crude, let alone in its complex form. However, the unique feature of caste system was that it assigned an occupation not to an individual, but to a group of individuals. A particular individual was ordained to undertake a particular occupation just because he belonged to a particular group by birth. In reality, this spelt disaster for the low-caste people in general and untouchables in particular.

This laid Dr. Ambedkar to argue that caste system did not result merely in division of labour, but it resulted into the division of labourers.[6] The former is the result of preference, choice, liking and aptitude of an individual, while the later is independent of the individual being. The former is voluntary, the later is not only obligatory but coercive. Thus, like in ever other social sphere, in economic sphere too the caste system amounted to the travesty of individual freedom.

What was worst, the effect of birth – based occupational distribution on different castes was exactly opposite in nature. This arrangement proved to be a divine privilege for the upper castes enjoying the exclusive rights to education, agriculture, industry, trade, commerce and so on. On the other hand, it spelt disaster for the lower castes. This is because the later were assigned the tasks involved only menial labour. The Dalits were thus prevented from earning let alone accumulating wealth, which restricted their needs to bare existence. What was further deplorable, the jobs involving menial labour which were assigned to them were stigmatized and treated as polluted ones. Thus, absence of freedom of occupation, low earning (mainly in kind), implicit restrictions on needs and stigma on menial labour destroyed the economy of the lower castes. As a result, they came to be fully dependent on the upper castes for their economic existence.[7]

Conditions of the untouchables were not only deplorable but were disastrously worst. Caste system made them socially outcaste, economically dependable, and politically powerless. This, according to me, can be attributed to several factors; but to my mind, the single most important factor to which their appalling miseries can be attributed is the denial to the untouchables (i.e., Dalits) the right to education. It is in this background that I now propose to deal with the theme viz., Education: The Only Key to Dalit Progress.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF DALITS

Now in order to underscore the importance of education to the Dalits, let me begin with by presenting their broad socio-economic profile. Here we have used terms Scheduled Castes (SCs)/Scheduled Tribes (STs) and the Dalits as interchangeable.

Table-1

Socio-Economic Profile of SCs, STs and Total Population (All India)

Sr. No.	Indicator	SCs	STs	Total Population
1	Population (Crore) (Percent)	13.82 (16.48)	06.76 (08.08)	83.86 (100.00)
2	Literacy (%) Total Male Female	37.41 49.91 39.29	29.60 40.65 23.76	52.21 64.13 39.29
3	Urbanisation (%)	18.72	07.39	25.73
4	Agricultural Labourers	48.00
5	Cultivators	28.17
6	Average Status of Cultivators	Marginal
7	Percentage of People below Poverty Line	50.00
8	Bonded Labourers	66.00
9	Employment (%) Primary Sector Secondary Sector Tertiary Sector	77.11 09.83 13.06	90.03 03.85 06.12	67.53 11.97 20.50

Note: Information at Sr. Nos. 1,2,3 and 9 pertain to the year 1991 and from 4 to 8

pertain to 1987-88.

Source: (i) Sarvekshana, vol. XII, No.4, April-June 1999.

(ii) Population Census, 1991

As Table 1 shows, in 1991, population of SCs and that of STs was 13.82 and 6.76 crores, respectively, constituting 16.48 and 8.08 percent, respectively. So far other indicators are concerned, it is observed that total literacy among the SC and ST male population was 37.41 and 29.60 percent respectively; while the average literacy for the country as a whole was 62.21 percent. Again the literacy rates, among SC and ST male population were 49.91 and 40.65 percent, respectively compared to 64.13 percent for the population as a whole. In terms of female literacy rate, the comparative figures were 39.29, 23.76, and 39.29 percent, respectively. This shows that in the area of literacy SC and ST population lags much behind the national average.

Urbanisation is one of the most significant indicators of geographical and economic mobility and therefore over-all economic progress. It is disappointing to observe that in 1991 the rate of urbanization was only 18.72 percent for SCs and as low as 7.39 percent for STs compared to 25.73 percent for the national average.

It is further observed that 48 percent of SC population comprised agricultural laborers, while cultivators were barely 28 percent. It is needless to say that generally SC cultivators are ‘marginal’. What is worse, 66 percent of the bonded labours in the country belong to SCs.

If we glance at the employment profiles of the SCs and STs vis-à-vis the population as a whole, it could be observed that 77 percent of the SCs and 90 percent of the STs have been employed in the primary sector as against 67.53 percent for the country as a whole. Further, only 9.83 percent of SCs and 3.85 percent of the STs worked in the secondary sector compared to 11.97 percent for the national average. Lastly, 13.06 and 6.12 percent of the SCs and STs worked in the tertiary sector compared to 20.50 percent for the populations as a whole.

As a result of all these multiple but inter-related factors 50 percent of the total SC population was below poverty line.

In view of this, it would be interesting to see the extent of land ownership by Dalit households. This is because in rural areas ownership of / access to land is the single crucial factor that enables one to share the benefits of agricultural development and also serves as a symbol of social prestige. Thus, Table 2 shows that households owning less than one hectare of land were 68.50 percent among the SCs compared to 57.5 percent among the others. Further, as we increase the size of land owned by an household, the percentage of households belonging to SC households goes on declining compared to those belonging to the category ‘others’. For example, only 1.5 percent of the SC households owned land more than four hectares while the same percentage for others was 6.40. This unequal ownership of land among the SC households vis-à-vis the others ultimately results in unequal distribution of gains of agricultural prosperity. (In the case of STs the position of land ownership is better than SCs and sometimes also ‘others’. This may be attributed to the nature and features of the tribal economy and should not mislead one to conclude that agriculture as an economic activity is more favourable with the STs compared to the SCs, let alone the non-SC/ST population).

Table-2

Ownership of Agricultural Land by Sign Class of Holdings (1993-94)

No.	Sign Class in Hectares	S. T.	S. C.	Others	All
1	Landless	13.30	18.10	11.20	12.90
2	Less than 1	51.30	68.50	57.40	59.10
3	1 to 2	18.70	08.00	15.10	14.00
4	2 to 4	11.90	03.90	09.90	08.00
5	4 above	04.80	01.50	06.40	06.00
6	Total	100.00	100.00	100.00	100.00

Source: Sarvekshana, vol. XII, No.4, April-June 1999.

In Table 3, we present the composition of households by household type i.e., by nature of occupation. The novelty of this table is that we have separate information for SCs, STs, and ‘others’ i.e., ‘non-SCs and STs’. Thus, Table 3 shows that only 38 percent of ST and 20.10 percent of SC households are self-employed in agriculture and 5.90 percent and 10.70 percent of them are self-employed in non-agriculture. Thus, all self-employed (both in agriculture and non-agriculture) ST and SC households comprise 44 percent and 30.80 percent respectively. Compared to this, 43.30, 14.50 and 57.70 percent households belonging to ‘others’ were self-employed in agriculture, self-employed in non-agriculture and all self-employed.

Table-3

Per Cent Distribution of Households by Household Type (1993-94)

Household Type	S. T.	S.C.	Others
SEA	38.00	20.10	43.30
SENA	06.00	10.70	14.40
All SE	44.00	30.80	57.70
AL	37.80	49.30	23.20
OL	10.10	10.20	06.90
All Lab.	47.90	59.50	30.20
Others	08.20	09.70	12.10
All	100.00	100.00	100.00

Source: As Table 2

SEA = Self-employed in agriculture, SENA = Self-employed in non-agriculture

AIISE= All Self-employed, AL= Agricultural labour households OL= Other

labour AII Lab= All labour, ST= Scheduled Tribe, SC= Scheduled Caste

Further, 37.80 and 49.30 percent of the ST and SC households were agricultural labour households, while the proportion for ‘other’ was 23.20 percent. Similarly, ‘other’ labour households constituted 10.10 and 10.20 percent respectively for the ST and SC households with only 6.90 percent among the ‘others’.

This shows that the majority of the SC households depend upon their own labour as the main source of livelihood to be followed by the ST households. In this respect the households belonging to category ‘others’ are far better compared to the STs and SCs.

EDUCATIONAL SCENARIO AMONG DALITS

We have provided above overall broad socio-economic profile of the SCs and STs with respect to nature of employment and jobs available to them only with a view to highlighting an overwhelming importance of education in securing to them means of livelihood. In an highly unequal and in egalitarian society stratified and differentiated by class and most importantly by caste education appears to be the only surest key and the soundest way to the Dalit Progress. It helps in accelerating geographical mobility from rural to urban areas and also for occupational upgradations. In a caste-based society like India, the revolutionary role of education in the lives of the Dalits can hardly be exaggelarated.

It is in view of this that we now provide the information regarding various aspects of education among the Dalits, the impact of economic reforms on the Dalit education and, in the end, also propose to suggest some measures that would help ensuring better education to the Dalits.

Thus, in Table 4 we provide statistics relating to school attendance rates among the children in the age group 4-14 years belonging to the above categories, as also separately for male and female and even for rural and urban areas. Again, the information relates to three points of time i.e. 1983, 1987-88, and 1993-94.

It is heartening to observe that over a period of time school attendance rates among the SC and ST children are increasing. But compared to the children belonging to category ‘other’, they are lagging far behind. Further, the gap is much wider in the case of female attendance rates of two Dalit categories vis-à-vis ‘other’. Lastly, the school attendance rates among SC / ST children in the rural areas are more unsatisfactory compared to those in the urban areas. In other words, the school attendance rates among the SC / ST children in general and those among rural female in particular are quite unsatisfactory compared to those among the non-SC / ST children in particular. What is further distressing, the drop–out rates among the SC / ST children are also much higher.

Table-4

School Attendance Rates Among the Children in the Age-group 5-14 yrs.

(i.e. number of children attending the school per 100 children in the age-group)

for different social groups: India

(Figures in per cent)

Social group	School attendance rates among children (5-14yrs.)
	Male			Female
	1983@	1987-88	1993-94	1983@	1987-88	1993-94
Rural
ST	39.50	44.50	57.90	20.40	26.20	40.90
SC	48.90	49.80*	64.30	25.50	31.10*	46.20
Other	59.20	63.40	74.90	39.20	45.80	61.00
All	55.30	58.90	71.00	34.80	41.10	55.90
Urban
ST	67.00	67.20	79.70	52.70	62.30	69.70
SC	66.70	68.20*	77.50	52.30	53.80*	68.60
Other	76.50	78.00	86.80	69.10	72.60	83.00
All	74.80	76.40	85.30	66.40	69.90	80.70

@ Figures correspond to current enrolment rates.

* Neo-Buddhists of Maharashtra are not considered under SC for obtaining the

estimates.

Source: As Table 2

This being the case the levels of education among the SC/ST population compared to the non SC/ST population are bound to be different. How they are different is shown in Table 5.

Thus, Table 5 shows that the levels of middle, secondary and higher secondary education among the male as well as female population in both rural and urban areas among the SC/ST population are much lower compared to non-SC/ST population.

Table-5

Percent Distribution of Persons of Age 15 years and above by General education for Different Social Groups: India

(Figures in per cent)

Social group	Percent distribution of persons (15+) by level of general education
	Not Literate	Literate and up to primary	Middle	Secondary	Higher secondary	Graduate & above