As Rohith Vemulla’s last missive started to catch people’s imagination and his experience of discrimination left people red faced, an excercise in damage limitation was initiated. Rohith, it was said, could not be a victim of caste discrimination because he was not a Dalit. Rohith’s last letter recounted in detail his experience of discrimination at home, in school and then the university. Since it would be disrespectful to question the word of a dead man, the narrative provided by Rohith was not questioned, only the label of the experience was challenged. The experience was accepted as horrible, loud protestations of shame and hurt were voiced, horrible as it may be, the experience could not be categorized as caste discrimination as Rohith’s caste certificate was illegally acquired. With a backward caste father, and a non-dalit maternal grandmother, Rohith’s caste certificate was (depending on how kindly inclined was the speaker towards the dead scholar) either wrongfully granted or wrongfully obtained. Without a caste certificate, the deceased scholar, could not allege caste discrimination. In what follows I deliberate on the validity of this contention.

Why caste certificates?

The requirement for caste certificates came from the need to ensure that the affirmative action entitlements, meant for the Dalits were received by the Dalits. The certificate, which is to be issued by the authority designated to perform the task was thus a procedure devised by officialdom to prevent such misuse. Due to this connect between entitlements and caste certificates, they are continually scrutinized for authenticity. The issue of entitlements, especially for offspring of inter-caste alliances has been subject to judicial scrutiny, wherein the Courts have primarily made the lived experience the determinative test. If the child of an inter-caste marriage, is brought up as a Dalit or Adivasi child, then this lived experience, would determine the identity of the child (Rameshbhai Dabhai Naika vs State of Gujarat and others, dated 18 January, 2012 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197038546/). The caste of the father whilst relevant would not be conclusive of the matter. Thus if the child of a Dalit father is not brought up as a Dalit, then the benefits of the affirmative action initiatives do not flow to him. Similarly, as in Rohith’s case, if the child of a non-Dalit father is brought up as a Dalit, then the Dalit identity rules.

Whilst the affirmative action entitlements of Dalits depend upon the caste certificate, the certificate in no way controls the experience of exclusion as Dalits. Exclusion is controlled by perception. If a person is perceived as Dalit and treated accordingly, then it is the perception resulting in a particular kind of treatment and not the certificate, which would determine whether discrimination has been practiced and exclusion experienced. The bureaucratic process of obtaining a Dalit certificate, may prevent many a Dalit person from obtaining a caste certificate, and this omission may prevent the availing of affirmative action benefits. The absence of a certificate, in no way stops persons who believe in the hierarchy of caste, from discriminating against those who they perceive as Dalit.

In seeking to settle Rohith’s identity, it is not his certificate, (which incidentally also meets the test devised by the apex court) but his lived experience which has to settle his identity. Rohith’s last letter, deserves high probity as it was written just before he died, recounts in great detail the discrimination he experienced as a Dalit. In such a situation to raise questions on the authenticity of his Dalit status is adding insult onto injury.

Interestingly, no question had been asked on the validity of his certificate in the 5 years he was in the university. Questions on the validity of the certificate were raised only after he died and the fact of his discrimination became national news. The other trigger for inquiring into the caste certificate was the complaint under the SC/ST Atrocities Act against the Vice Chancellor. Only after this complaint, the authenticity of the certificate became an issue. Evidently on the reasoning that if Rohith is not Dalit then a complaint under the SC/ ST Atrocities Act cannot be entertained.

The SC/ST Atrocities Act can be categorized as a penal statute. And a penal statute needs to be strictly construed. Possibly, the certificate issue is being raked up in order to contend that a penal statute cannot be activated if the identity of the victim is questionable. And challenging the authenticity of the caste certificate is part of the same strategy.

Even if for the sake of argument it is conceded that the certificate is questionable, does it affect the fact of discrimination and the accompanying atrocities? Here the critical question is not related to the identity of the victim but what the perpetrator believed to be the identity of the victim. The correspondence of the University with Rohith conclusively shows that for the University Rohith was a Dalit student, this reality cannot be negated by any caste certificate inquiry. Interestingly, according to the newspapers the fellowship amount due to the scholar has been released, which demonstrates that the University, like the UGC did not suspect the caste of the scholar. Any claim to the contrary does not seem bonafide. The SC/ST Atrocities Act is to put in place a non-negotiable floor on the social interaction between the Dalit – Adivasi community and the rest. The implementation of the statute cannot compromise on this core requirement.

- Amita Dhanda, Professor, NALSAR, Hyderabad