Anti-Caste Motion In Toronto and Its Challenges

The Toronto District School Board (TDSB) has recently requested the Ontario Human Rights Commission for assistance in developing a plan to address allegations of caste prejudice in its school. A motion to that effect was made by board trustee Yalini Rajakulasingam, and the TDSB voted in support of it. The motion received votes from 16 trustees, while 5 trustees abstained. It happens just after Seattle, Washington, became the first American city to forbid caste discrimination following a city council vote.

While TDSB's initiative is seen as a progressive move by some, the motive of the move is questionable especially when the Ontario Human Rights Commission already have ancestry covered under its existing list of Protected Categories as given in the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19.

However, TDSB stresses upon the need to address caste separately although it may not be necessary. 

Caste is a word that originated from Spanish and Portuguese. It was used in reference to lineage, tribe, clan or race of people. In Sanskrit and other Indic languages, the words synonymous to caste are jāti (tribe), vaṁśaḥ (lineage) and kula (clan). In ancient India, people did not identify their ethnic like how we do it today. The tribal identities were the ethnic identities back then. Hence, the word for ethnicity in Sanskrit is jātīya and it is taken from jāti. 

These comes under the broader term of ancestry, therefore, the need to add a new category under the caste tag raises eyebrows. This is because not only did they demand for the term caste to be included, they have specifically mentioned that it is applicable to the South Asian and Caribbean diaspora. 

This means that they have now created a situation where the concerned communities will be monitored by the authorities although discriminations based on ancestry can also happen in other social groups. It is not exclusive to South Asians or the Caribbean diaspora, hence there is no need for special ethnic profiling.

India has categorized the various jātis as Forward Caste, Backward Class, Other Backward Class, Denotified Community, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The classification was done for economic and political purpose with the aim of uplifting certain communities by providing them favorable privileges' such as job reservation, electoral constituency reservation and even reservation in tertiary education without any regard for individual capability. 

This classification does not uphold meritocracy. It has the potential to be misused to favor groups with sizeable vote banks.

However absurd it may sound, what we need to also remind ourselves is that the classification was done by the Indian government for its citizens, therefore, it is not applicable to those who live outside India such as the present day Canadians of Indian descent. 

As per the Anthropological Survey of India which was conducted under the leadership of K.S. Singh between 1985-1992, there are about 4,694 different groups of communities or jātis in India alone. Therefore, TDSB needs to first understand that since its proposal covers more than just Indians, it affects not just one single community, but thousands of communities including those that are not well documented.

This then raises some important questions: 

• Did the provincial government of Ontario or the federal government of Canada, conduct any study to determine what are the castes that exist in Canada?
• How did both the provincial and federal government determine which caste is considered as oppressed or dominant in Canada?
• What method did the government use to determine that caste identity was a motivating factor in school bullying cases involving Canadian children?

The reason these questions needs to be addressed is because neither TDSB nor the government of the day has any data to support the proposal they made. This will make it difficult to draft any future plans. Canada will not be able to rely on India's caste classification because there are various factors that makes Canada different from India. 

To make matters more complex, neither does Canada have any caste based laws that gives privileges to any caste nor does it have any discriminatory policy that makes it disadvantageous for anyone unlike what is seen in present day India. 

Therefore, the same approach taken in India cannot be taken in Canada especially when Canada does not even have any data pertaining to the matter as raised in the questions above.

The motion and its selective criteria for membership. Image courtesy of COHHE.

Assuming that TDSB is correct and the proposal needs to be upheld, then the working group should consist of representative from all castes and not from just a particular group. 

Having checked the proposal, it is noticed that only activists that self-identify as Dalit and are from caste-oppressed group will become members of the proposed working group. Although TDSB claims that they are against caste prejudice, they have made caste identity as a membership criteria for this new working group. 

Formation of this working group may be contradictory to the Human Rights Code of Ontario as ancestry should not be a determining factor for employment or vocational associations.

Employment

5 (1) Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability.  R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 5 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (5); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (5); 2012, c. 7, s. 4 (1).

Vocational associations

6 Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to membership in any trade union, trade or occupational association or self-governing profession without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, age, marital status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 6; 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (7); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (7); 2012, c. 7, s. 5.

If caste is used as a criteria for the membership of this working group, there can be tendency to be biased and partial, especially when there is no proper method to accurately identify the oppressed castes in Canada. 

Imagine having only adherents of one religion as members of a working group that oversees religious discrimination involving all religions in schools. That will not make sense as it will be ridiculously unfair for the unrepresented religions.

If Toronto school children are indeed facing caste prejudice, then the working group that oversees it in the future should be inclusive of members from all the castes in Toronto instead of from one selected caste. It should be a multi-caste team with a common goal of eradicating discrimination.

This will give the multi-caste team the needed opportunity to de-escalate any tension, increase effectiveness in addressing prejudice and enhance understanding of cultural nuances. This will not only help to build trust but also strengthen the bond within the diverse group of castes that they represent in Toronto. 

School going children will not learn to work together unless adults show them that they can work together. But if caste is used as a membership criteria to be part of a school board's working team, then this divisive tactic will definitely send the wrong message to everyone.

The author is a researcher who was formerly attached with the Centre for South Asian and Indian Ocean Studies (SAIOS). These are his personal views on the issue.