by Rajan Philips-May 14, 2016, 8:59 pm

The two events in the title are not connected, but they share two overlapping processes that justify a few joint reflections. The first process involves the age old, or ageless, tensions between social inclusion and exclusion. And the second is the globalization of these tensions, which have historically been isolated and confined to specific communities. Their contemporary manifestations are now being writ large the world over, on the one hand, and are becoming inextricably intertwined in the world’s urban mosaics, on the other. In January this year, the UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on Minority Issues, delivered her report for 2015, described as "a thematic analysis on the topic of minorities and discrimination based on caste and analogous systems of inherited status." In essence, the report frames caste discrimination in all its forms as a violation of human rights and qualifies it as a matter of concern for all of humanity and not just caste societies.
The second event occurred five months later, on May 6, 2016, when Sadiq Khan, a British Muslim born to Pakistani immigrant parents, was elected as the Mayor of London, the oldest of the world’s modern metropolises. The London election is not the end of racism in western societies, but it shows how far Britain (and other western countries) has changed after Enoch Powell’s "Rivers of Blood" speech in 1968. The 45 year old new Mayor of London was not even born till two years later (1970). The Mayoral election might be seen as vindication of Powell’s foreboding that uncontrolled immigration would change Britain irrevocably. Powell, upper class and Oxford Classicist, was quoting Virgil to emphasize his anxieties but the Latin quote in translation inadvertently became the sensationally historical title of his speech. Nonetheless, he struck a raw nerve among Britain’s white under classes, left and right, even as he was widely condemned by social elites and political leaders and punished by his Conservative Party. Racial accommodation and the backlash against it have since become the two faces British society, and indeed every other Western country. Mr. Khan’s election is a victory for accommodation even though the backlash against it had already begun with the racist campaign launched by the Tory candidate and his supporters. We have seen this already in America. After universally celebrating the election of its African American President in Barack Obama, America has been blindsided by the backlash against that self-same success. Donald Trump pompously rode that backlash to secure the nomination of Abraham Lincoln’s Party. There is now the dreadful prospect of a Trump presidency!
-YPR-1-2.jpg)
Mayor Khan’s election is all the more remarkable because he ran against a virulent anti-Muslim campaign and in a general anti-Muslim climate in the Western world, unlike President Obama whose African roots were not a matter of contention in either of the two elections he won. The American people were looking for change after eight years of war and the onset of a huge economic recession. The backlashes came after Obama’s victories. On a positive note, their victories were made possible by a plurality of voters, and not ‘a majority of the majority’, coming together on a platform of common issues. In a field of 12 candidates, Khan won an impressive 44% of the vote, 57% after counting second preferences, described as the largest personal mandate in Britain’s voting history. The voters were more swayed by Sadiq Khan’s promise to freeze the London Underground and bus fares for his entire term of four years, and spurned the accusations against him of having links to Islamic extremists. Khan won without disavowing or distancing himself from Islam. Khan’s victory is also being touted as a sign of the support among a plurality of British voters for voting to stay in the European Union in the upcoming Brexit referendum in June. Not to mention the hype about being the forerunner for an ethnic minority becoming British Prime Minister.
Habitual nay sayers will dismiss such victories as superficial and cosmetic, and of little consequence without fundamental changes in society. But fundamental changes do not come about at one fell swoop, and they will not come at all unless every positive change, however minor, is recognized for its worth and consolidated as the basis for the next step. In the current phase of the reasonably long history of world capitalism, the global mixing of populations that colonialism and capitalism brought about is beginning to show interesting new possibilities. The possibilities vary from country to country both in their acceptance and in the backlashes against them. Calgary, Canada’s fourth largest city, has had a Muslim Mayor, Naheed Nenshi, since 2010 with hardly any backlash. He is a now a national figure and was re-elected in 2013 polling 74% of the vote. That does not mean there is no racism in Canada, or there are no Muslim youths taking flight to join ISIS forces in Iraq and Syria. But it is fair to say that in the never ending tension between inclusion and exclusion, the forces of exclusion in Canada are politically very much weaker than they are in the neighbouring United States.
UNHRC and Caste
But neither country can be proud of its history of treating its indigenous people, the surviving descendants of those who lived in the Americas and had built their own civilizations when Columbus first landed here. To its credit, the new Liberal government in Canada is making a concerted effort to right the wrongs of history. Just last week, the present government rejected the objections of its predecessor and accepted the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples almost a decade after it was first adopted by the General Assembly. In theory, this means the willing acceptance of international oversight by a sovereign government in regard to the treatment of a section its own people. But in practice what the Canadian government is demonstrating is that by acting on its own to change government policy and practice vis-à-vis its indigenous communities, the First Nations, it would render international overseers inconsequential, if not unnecessary. Resistance to international or UN initiatives invariably occurs when governments are not willing to change their ways.
To return to ‘caste landing in Geneva’, no one could conceivably take exception to UNHRC’s innocuously titled "Report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues", dealing with caste and analogous discriminations based on inherited status. Despite its title and short length, the report by the current Special Rapporteur, Hungarian lawyer Rita Izsak-Ndiaye, is a remarkable and powerful document that challenges not just the ill-effects of caste but the caste hierarchy itself based on the principles of "human dignity, equality and non-discrimination." Disappointingly, but not unsurprisingly, the government of India has not taken kindly to the UNHRC report, just as an earlier BJP government strenuously objected to the inclusion of caste on the agenda of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism in Durban South Africa. As if to divert attention from the UNHRC report, the BJP government has taken to commemorating the 125th birth anniversary of Babasaheb Ambedkar at the UN in New York and elsewhere.
As the UNHRC report points out over 250 million people suffer from caste-based discrimination worldwide. Although the biggest concentration is in South Asia, and more predominantly in India and Nepal, caste has migrated among diaspora communities in the west. In addition, there are analogous practices in Africa, the Middle East, and the Pacific region. Although based on work and descent, the stigma of caste has shown to be resistant to removal even with changing occupations and geographical relocations. The report emphasizes the "interpersonal and communal relationships" that underpin caste differences, requiring not only "legal and political responses", but also "community based approaches" involving "formal and informal education and open dialogue from an early age." The purpose of these initiatives should be not merely to establish equality on paper, but really to change "the mindsets of individuals and the collective conscience of local communities." Education, open dialogue, and social change cannot be fostered by rejecting a very worthy UNHRC report, but by accepting it and acting on its recommendations. My point is that international and UN concern over caste discrimination is not overdue, but it has become invariable and inevitable.