Caste Discrimination Essay

association transcriptions atomic number 18 a constellation of kind and economic administration that is establish on principles and customary rules Caste systems involve the division of lot into tender groups ( clubs) where assignments of rights argonde considerationined by birth, ar fixed and hereditary.The assignment of basic rights among dissimilar clans is both unequal and hierarchical, with those at the top enjoying virtually rights coupled with least duties and those at the bottom performing most duties coupled with no rights.The system is maintained through the rigid enforcement of favorable ostracism (a system of complaisant and economic penalties) in case of any deviations. Inequality is at the nitty-gritty of the association system.Those who f whole outside the company system are considered lesser gentlemans gentleman beings, impure and thus polluting to other caste groups. They are cognize to be untouchable and subjected to so-called untouchability practi ces in both creation and toffee-nosed spheres. Untouchables are often forcibly assigned the most dirty, menial and barbarian jobs, such as cleaning human waste. The work they do adds to the stigmatization they face from the surrounding sleeper. The exclusion of caste-affected communities by other groups in society and the inherent structural inequality in these social relationships lead to racy levels of poverty among affected population groups and exclusion from, or reduced benefits from growth demonstratees, and generally precludes their involvement in decision making and heart and soulful employment in ordinary and civil life.The division of a society into castes is a global phenomenon non exclusively practised within any particular religion or flavour system. In South Asia, caste secernment is traditionally rooted in the Hindu caste system. Supported by philosophical elements, the caste system constructs the moral, social and judicial foundations of Hindu socie ty. Dalits are outcastes or throng who snuff it outside the four-fold caste system consisting of theBrahmin, Kshatriya, Vysya and Sudra. Dalits are similarly referred to as Panchamas or people of the fifth order. However caste systems and the ensuing caste contrariety get down spread into Christian, Buddhist, Muslim and Sikh communities.Caste systemsare also found in Africa, other part of Asia, the Middle East, the Pacific and in Diaspora communities around the world. In Japan association is made with Shinto beliefs concerning purity and impurity, and in marginalized Afri sight groups the justification is found on myths. Caste divergence affects approximately 260 million people worldwide, the wide majority living in South Asia. Caste variety involves massive violations of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. It is often outlawed in countries affected by it, but a lack of implementation of legislation and caste-bias within the referee systems largely le ave Dalits without protection. Videos Cases of Caste DiscriminationClick here to date a Playlist from IDSNs YouTube Channel with a selection of videos dealing with cases of caste diversity and the consequences of this. Understanding UntouchabilityA comprehensive Study of practices and conditions in 1589 Villages Caste-establish inequality is the most complex human rights issue facing India today. To date, the tools enjoymentd to survey its status return been divided by disciplinehuman rights, healthy and social science. Although significant contributions toward understanding untouchability see been made in severally of these areas, it is difficult to comprehend the scope and pervasiveness of the job without combining the tools of all three. We have spent the last four years compiling quantitative, comprehensive and genuine data exposing the current state of untouchability (caste- found discrimination) against Dalitsi (untouchables) in Gujarat, India.This promulgate prese nts data on untouchability practices in 1,589 villages from 5,462 respondents in Gujarat on the issue of untouchability. In 2000, Martin Macwan of Navsarjan received the Robert F. Kennedy human beings Rights Award, initiating a long-term alliance between Navsarjan and the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & mankind Rights. In response to Navsarjans identified need for an extensive analyze on caste discrimination, instalments of the RFK Global Advocacy Team from the University of Maryland/Kroc impart at the University of Notre Dame, and Dartmouth College/University of Michigan joined the team. The objective was to contribute to a more than comprehensive understanding of the topic in order to better sire Navsarjans advocacy and intervention work. In its efforts across Gujarat and India, Navsarjan has experienced first-hand that a deeperunderstanding gained by intensive data collection leads to the breeding of more meative strategies to address the cover practice of unto uchability.Indeed, interactions with individuals across age, caste, gender and social sectors during the implementation of this study reveal that the potential for ending untouchability may make it within two large groups of people that can be seen as sources of hope. First, a large segment of Indian society, primarily of younger propagation Indians, though largely ignorant whatsoeverwhat its scope and practice, appears ready and uncoerced to learn about untouchability and work towards its true abolition. Second, another group of people across caste, studyity and religious affiliations have become deeply concerned about the prevalence of untouchability practices berthed from the perspective of human rights. This group of activists, advocates, donors, lawyers, students, academics, politicians and ordinary citizens has developed an sense of untouchability as an issue of civil and human rights law.The report presents both a general and multi-disciplinary view of current untouch ability practices across rural areas in Gujarat (bringing unneurotic political science, sociology, law, public policy and community organizing) and wins evidence to refute the belief that untouchability is limited to remote and economically underdeveloped corners of India. The broad picture of untouchability can be used to educate Indian society about these practices and to pop an informed national and international debate on how to address the problem. equally important, this report presents a picture of untouchability that promotes global visibility on the exsertd human rights violations suffered by Dalits and provides an example to other countries on methods for identifying, understanding and eliminating antiblack activity. We believe that a systematic approach to understanding untouchability shatters the myth that the problem is intractable. Instead, we hope that the data presented here and the understanding it generates will spark tonic energy and commitment to the moveme nt to end the injustice and indignity of untouchability. (to view the all-encompassing report hit the link below)Caste-based discrimination is a form of discrimination prohibited byinternational human rights law. Although it may not be equated with racism, it is quite clear from several quotes made by several UN pact and charter-bodies that this issue warrants due recognition as an example of gross human rights violation that needs to be taken into consideration by all human rights mechanisms available in the UN system. ICERD definintions and CERD practice on extraction-based discrimination The pedigree limb of the definition of racial discrimination Article 1(1) of ICERD defines racial discrimination as follows Any clear-cution, exclusion, restriction or p fictional character based on race, colour, regrets, national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of knock offing or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and positive freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life (emphasis added)The term descent as a prohibited scope of discrimination springs unheralded and unexplained into the basic framework of ICERD. It is one of notwithstanding two terms in this list that isnt borrowed directly from the UDHR conceptuality (the other being ethnic origin, in lieu of social origin). It does not appear in any of the key pre-ICERD texts on racial discrimination. It is also noteworthy that, although included in the definition in article 1(1), the term descent was omitted from the list of prohibited grounds of discrimination in article 5 of ICERD. CERD public good backchat No. 29 on descentCERD has confirmed its interpretation of descent, in the form of its commonplace Recommendation No. 29 on descent-based discrimination, follow on 22 supercilious 2002. This General Recommendation Confirms the consistent view of the commission that the term descent in Art icle 1, paragraph 1 of the assembly does not solely refer to race and has a meaning and employment which complements the other prohibited grounds of discrimination and Reaffirms that discrimination based on descent includes discrimination against members of communities based on forms of social stratification such as caste and analogous systems of inherited status which nullify or impair their equal enjoyment of human rights. From this review of CERDs practice, it is apparent that the committal has consciously and consistently pick out an interpretation of the descent limb of article 1 of ICERD that encompasses situations of caste-based discrimination and analogous forms ofinherited social exclusion. Read CERD General Recommendation No. 29 on descentCERD General Recommendation No. 32 on special measuresThis CERD General Recommendation on the meaning and scope of special measures in the ICERD, adopted at its 75th session in August 2009, affirms General Recommendation 29 on Articl e 1, paragraph 1, of the host (Descent), which makes limited reference to special measures. The Committee also states that special measures should be carried out on the basis of accurate data, disaggregated by race, colour, descent and ethnic or national origin and incorporating a gender perspective, on the socio-economic and cultural status and conditions of the unlike groups in the population and their participation in the social and economic development of the country.Subsequent CERD practiceAny subsequent practice in the application of the treaty which establishes the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation may also, in such circumstances, be taken into account. In the course of reviewing state party reports, CERD has expressed translucent reliance on the descent limb of article 1 in order to address the situation of Dalits in India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, the UK, as well as the analogous situations of the Burakumin in Japan. CERD has also addressed situa tion of descent-based discrimination in a number of other instances, even though in some of these additional cases the reliance upon the descent limb of the article 1 of the approach pattern has been implicit.Concluding observations have been made by the Committee in revere of Yemen, Nigeria, Chad, Mali, Senegal, Madagascar, Mauritania, Burkina Faso, and Mauritius. Conflicts in Somalia had also been viewed by CERD as being based on descent, thus bringing them within the purview of ICERD. As CERD expert member Patrick Thornberry has argued, whatever the argument on the relation between the specific reference to race in Article 1 and the caste issue, there is a suggestion here that in the context of the Convention as a whole, and in particular in the context of special measures, the redress of caste disabilities finds a place.Response by affected countriesIn early August 1996, CERD considered Indias consolidated tenth to fourteenth oscillating reports. In this context, India want to establish that discrimination related to caste did not fall within the scope of ICERD or within the jurisdiction of the Committee. The term caste, the Indian report declared, denotes a social and class distinction and is not based on race.The report expressly acknowledges that Article 1 of the Convention includes in the definition of racial discrimination the term descent, and that oth castes and tribes are systems based on descent. However, the Indian position concerning the interpretation of this term was that the use of the term descent in the Convention clearly refers to race.Communities which fall under the definition of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are unique to Indian society and its historical process. it is, therefore, submitted that the policies of the Indian Government relating to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes do not come under the purview of Article 1 of the Convention. In the course of discussion of the report in the Committee, the Indian delegatio n verbalise that Indias report had focused on cases relating to race as distinct from other categorizations referred to in the Constitution. Constitutionally, the concept of race was distinct from caste. To confer a racial character on the caste system would create right smart political problems which could not be the Committees intention. In the warmheartedness of dialogue, however, India was prepared to provide more information on matters other than race, without injustice to its understanding of the term race in the Convention. A number of CERD members challenged the Indian Governments interpretation of the term descent, and in its last(a) observations CERD insisted that the term descent mentioned in article 1 of the Convention does not solely refer to race. Moreover, the Committee affirmed that the situation of the schedule castes and scheduled tribes falls within the scope of the Convention, and went on to specifically recommend that special measures be taken by the auth orities to retard acts of discrimination towards persons belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, and, in cases where such acts have been committed, to conduct thorough investigations, to punish those found to be responsible and to provide just and adequate reparation to the victims.The Committee specifically stressed the immensity of the equal enjoyment by members of these groups of the rights to access healthcare, education, work and public places and services, including wells, cafs or restaurants. CERD also recommended a public education break away on human rights, aimed at eliminating the institutionalized thinking of the high-caste and low-caste mentality. Nepal has also appears to have acquiesced to CERDs interpretation and practice in this regard. CERD has now taken up the issue of caste-based discrimination in Nepal on three successive do without demur from the Nepalese Government.Indeed, Nepal has volunteered substantial amounts of information concerning caste-based discrimination in its periodic reports. When Pakistan was examined by CERD in February 2009, the Government took a principled decision by engaging constructively in a dialogue with the Committee on how to tackle the challenges faced by the Government in addressing the issue of caste-based discrimination in contemporary Pakistan. CESCR General Comment No. 20 on non-discriminationGeneral Comment No. 20 on Non-Discrimination in Economic, kindly and ethnical Rights was adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) at its 42nd session in May 2009. In this General Comment, the Committee reaffirms CERD GR No. 29 that the prohibited ground of birth also includes descent, especially on the basis of caste and analogous systems of inherited status. The Committee recommends States parties to take steps, for instance, to prevent, prohibit and eliminate discriminatory practices directed against members of descent-based communities and act against diffus ion of ideas of superiority and inferiority on the basis of descent. Caste in the world-wide Declaration on Human RightsIn none of the human rights instruments does the term caste appear. Nevertheless, an examination of the travaux preparatoires of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights shows that caste was explicitly contemplated by the conscriptioners as being encompassed in some of the more general terminology in the UDHRs foundational non-discrimination provision. In 1948, the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly was in debate over the inclusion of the countersignature birth in the list of prohibited grounds of distinction in what was to become article 2 of the Declaration. Mr Habib, representing India, said that he favoured the use of the enounce caste rather than birth, as the latterwas already implied in the article. Mrs Roosevelt for the united States of America, and a member of the informal drafting group, demurred to both this intervention. In her opinion, th e words property or other status took into consideration the conglomerate new suggestions that had been made.Mr Appadorai of the Indian delegation in effect accepted the US and Chinese caste-inclusive interpretations of some of the more general language in the draft article. He said his delegation had only proposed the word caste because it objected to the word birth. The words other status and social origin were sufficiently broad to cover the whole field the delegation of India would not, therefore, insist on its proposal. It is apparent therefore that caste was acknowledged in the drafting process as being encompassed in the terms other status and/or social origin, if not also in birth (the specific grounds of the Indian objection to this term not being alone clear from the travaux). To that extent, a special meaning may be regarded as having been attributed to those terms.As well as appearing in the non-discrimination provisions of most subsequent international human rights in struments, the terms social origin and/or other status (either or both of them) have been incorporated in the non-discrimination provisions of the significant number of national constitutions that have borrowed these formulations from the UDHR. At the akin time, it is noteworthy that a number of national constitutions have put the matter beyond question so far as their domestic legal regimes are concerned by explicitly referring to caste in their non-discrimination provisions. This applies to the constitutions of India, Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Burkina Faso.Caste discriminationMore than 165 million people in India continue to be subject to discrimination, exploitation and violence simply because of their caste. In Indias hidden apartheid, untouchability relegates Dalits throughout the country to a lifetime of segregation and abuse. Caste-based divisions continue to dominate in housing, marriage, employment and general social interactiondivisions that are reinforce d through economic boycotts and physical violence. Working in partnership with the International DalitSolidarity Network, Indias National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights, and the Gujarat-based Dalit grassroots organizationNavsarjan, IHRC works to hold the Indian government accountable for its systematic also-ran to respect, protect, and ensure Dalits fundamental human rights.In 2007, for instance, the IHRC issued a series of statements and a report based on its analysis of Indias failure to touch its international legal obligations to ensure Dalit rights, despite the existence of laws and policies against caste discrimination. The report Hidden Apartheidwhich was produced in collaboration with Human Rights Watchwas released as a shadow report in response to Indias submission to the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which monitors implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. IHRC also part icipated in legal proceeding related to the Committees review of Indias compliance with the Convention and presented the reports findings.