Comments on: Retiring the word “Dalit”

By: Prajwol

Prajwol — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 20:29:06 +0000

Gurkhahere, sorry bro I lumped two responses together, and you were right to feel a skewed response from me. You did good job of summing up all the comments, and we all believe the whole issue is non-sense.
We all can agree to disagree. Your example of rose is good, it does smell sweet regardless of any name given. But, if someone separates some of the rose from the bunch and calls it a crap, that is not right. “Dalit’” are human, unlike rose they feel more things. It’s not even considered a caste, but a mere defamation, so why continue using it? Why would there be a thing like “Program for Dalit aka Untouchables” “, why can’t we simply call it “Program for underrepresented/minority”? I strongly believe we need to eliminate “D” word first, at least from an administrative/policy level, while simultaneously working on to eliminate the concept and practice.
Thanks for keeping up with the discussion.

By: Gurkhahere

Gurkhahere — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 19:29:00 +0000

Prajwol, Thanks for responding. By the way, no, I never thought your proposal was sugarcoating. I apologize if it sounded that way. I think you’ve raised an issue that you are genuinely concerned about. I also didn’t think you were proposing to add a new name.

I also think we fundamentally agree that the system as a whole is non-sense. However the difference is in our priority for solutions. To me, eliminating the terminology is a lower priority. I’d rather eliminate the concept and the practice. From reading your post and your comment, I think you wanted to start by eliminating the terminology first. I think that’s where the difference is.

By: Prajwol

Prajwol — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 14:43:19 +0000

Golay bro, I like your analogy about Subtle Vs In Your Face

But I don’t agree with you or Gurkhahere liking my opinion as sugarcoating, even as I agree with your opinions on how to tackle it. I understand the cynicism, based on what’s been happening in Nepal, for example: “New Nepal”, “Loktantra” etc. But my idea was to possibly eliminate the existing ill name, not add a new one. And, I don’t expect things to be OK immediately after getting rid of that derogatory name, we still need to continue with the empowerment work. Think of it this way, if there were a groups of people drubbed as “YOU SUCK” (not that I’m saying Dalit = “YOU SUCK”), the present empowerment schemes are saying – Hey you don’t suck “YOU SUCK”.

Santosh Ji,

Retiring word from the society will definitely take much longer, but getting rid of it from Government, Donor Agency, and Empowerment Activities shouldn’t be a problem. Once latter is taken care of, first will also follow in line (of course with time).
I understand Quota is not a perfect system, but it is one of the many effective empowerment tool. How best to use it is up to the administrators. Even in US, if you are a veteran, or a minority, or a women, you will get job preference (at least theoretically). NNepali above provided couple of examples (thanks NNepali bro) of dreadful use of this empowerment tool. My take is, underrepresented should have the preference when competing with others, only if it’s like 50-50 or even 45-50, but not if the qualification gap between them is 20 – 50. But to bring them to level of 50 – 50 or 45 -50, they should be provided with other separate empowerment schemes alongside.
Caste or no-caste, there will always be majority and minority in the society: race, political beliefs, economics, etc. Though I believe in capitalistic society, a society where there is a huge gulf between majority and minority can never be sustainable. “We stand together, and we fall together.”

Dilip Ji, Thanks for your encouraging comment.

NNepali, what happened to u’r blogging bro?

By: Naked Nepali

Naked Nepali — Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:51:15 +0000

“On July 15, 2009, Nepal’s government brings a new budget for single women where if any person marries widow, they will be respect with Rs. 50,000 cash as a present. ”

I think the Nepal government is/was offering One lakh Rupees if you marry a dalit girl…

It raises so many issues that I won’t even bother pursuing it..

By: Dilip Acharya

Dilip Acharya — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 07:06:45 +0000

Very well written one !
I totally agree with you.

By: Gurkhahere

Gurkhahere — Thu, 08 Apr 2010 03:01:26 +0000

So the D-word hun!

I agree with golay that its not so much the term but the status quo of the “Dalits” that needs to change. After all, that which we call rose would smell as sweet by any other name.

You could give them a new name in the constitution, give them all the reservations or even create a “Dalit day” but that is not going to make a difference in the life of an ordinary “Dalit” if he/she goes to someone’s house and is denied food. I think what matters more is you and me talking to our neighbors, parents, relatives, and all the people you know and letting them know that all men are created equal and that god never intended to discriminate.

By: santosh

santosh — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:18:07 +0000

Very true, the word shouldn’t be labeled with the human being, and everyone is equal by birth. Its also true we have this deep rooted “CASTISM” past over generations, which is simply difficult to erase, but I am sure it will be erased over time. Coming back to the topic of the word “DALIT”, this word has become popular in the path to eradicate it, by trying to bring the backward community to the main stream. But I don’t understand, if the syatem of Castism doesn’t work in modern community, why do we talk about “main stream representation” based on cast or ethnicity? The quota syatem simply doesn’t work in two ways; firstly, those people falling in this category are labeled as incompetent, and secondly they just become incompetent because of the reservation given to them.
Retiring the word “dalit” won’t be possible, and if it is possible, we have to start erasing the words from the books of History, which in my opinion is not the best thing to do. I do agree with the post and the writer that the word in itself shouldn’t be so much emphasized that it starts being a tag to someone or some community. But what I am not convinced is that changing the label won’t really make a difference if we are still trying to say the same thing, in this case where it is the identity of a whole community, the members of which are no different than any other community.