Dr. Selvi Ganesh
Onesimus was a fugitive slave of Philemon — a friend of Apostle Paul. Onesimus had robbed his master Philemon and fled. He came in contact with Apostle Paul who decided to send Onesimus back to his master Philemon and wrote to him, “if you consider me a partner, welcome him as you would welcome me” “… no longer as a slave, but … as a dear brother… as a fellow man…” (Phil 16–17). This epistle cast a burden upon Philemon to treat his runaway slave as equal partner, a brother and fellow human.
In my conversation with a retired government servant who was employed as a domestic servant at a high level official’s residence, a household that practiced strict ‘āchāram’ and he was subject to several restrictions. Once, he happened to visit his cousin, who was also a domestic servant employed at another high level government officer Mr. D’Cuna’s residence. When he arrived there Mrs. D’Cuna welcomed him into the hall, made him sit in the sofa, served him tea and snacks and told him to wait as his cousin had gone to get something from the market. He could not believe the kind of treatment he was getting at Mr. D’Cuna’s which was in total contrast to what he was otherwise used to at a residence where he was employed.
M. K. Gandhi in “My experiment with Truth,” recounts his experience at Shri Rajendra Babu’s house, at Patna that “I might not draw water at the well whilst the servants were using it, lest drop of water from my bucket might pollute them, the servants not knowing what caste I belonged.” He was treated as such because the servants did not see any external symbols, flaunted by the upper caste men, in M. K. Gandhi; such as Shikha (Kudumi in Tamil, Shendi in Marathi, चुंदी, चोटी in Hindi) which he had it, but he discarded it when he went to England. As a result, a personality who had a title of ‘mahatma’ was subject to treatment as that of less than equal!!!
The external symbolism brings to my mind another instance while I was in school in Bombay (now Mumbai), one of a Tamil language class — an optional subject — the teacher was absent, hence it was free period, and we girls started chatting with each other. One girl said “my aachi (grandmother) wears paampadam earrings;” immediately, a girls who was a new admission to the school who had come from Madras, said: “paampadam earrings are worn by lower caste women!!!!” Sitting as equals in the same class room, got to hear from a fellow student the term “lower caste” for the first time and learnt that ‘paampadam earrings’ assigned as symbol on lower caste women!!!
I wonder as to at what point of time that humans start to think highly of themselves, start to think that they possess the right to treat other human’s unequal, mistreat, oppress and snatch away their inalienable dignity as humans.
Waiting at a reception to meet the head of an institution, I noticed the receptionist was pregnant; I started to have a chat with her. She said “I am so much pining for my mom at this point of time.” I asked: “what happened to her, is she not around.” She replied “I haven’t seen her after my marriage, as it was inter-caste. I knew that it would happen, that’s the reason after enquiring about his caste and after confirming that he also belongs to ‘Other Backward Caste’ — OBC category, I agreed to go ahead with this relationship.”
“May I know what caste you belong to?”
“Thevar.”
“What about your husband?”
“He is Nadar, I thought since both the castes falls within OBC category there will not be any problem, but my mother says Nadars are low caste and they did not agree to this marriage. Now, that I am carrying, I wish she was around, so much I would like to discuss with her.”
Be it thevar, nadar, pallar or parayar … their kula deivam is reckoned as Sudalaimada Sami , which indicates that they all have a common ancestry. There must have been a vertical division existed among them, but then: how, when and at what point of time in history the division became horizontal, hierarchical and even oppressive? What teachings they might have come across, when that became normative and how it came to be internalised? The teaching thus internalised and became normative got passed on to subsequent generations conscientiously. The question remains: is there a possibility of them regaining their status quo ante and come to recognise their common ancestry?
Wonder, what infused of such hierarchical division? In a vertical division they stand next to each other, in all probability as equals. Hierarchical division is pyramidal; one standing above other, leaving no scope for equality.
In the ‘paampadam earrings’ instance, the girl was instilled with a hierarchical mindset who had the audacity to make such a derogatory comment “lower caste” to her fellow classmate on the basis of external adornment and accessories; she was inculcated with a sense of superiority (complex)!!! M.K Gandhi, fear of being ridiculed gave up that hierarchical external symbol while in England but in India, those assigned symbol had given him sense of pride that placed him higher in the hierarchical division. Apparently, after being vexed with the treatment meted out to him for not flaunting such external symbol; he later decided to grow Shikha (குடுமி) again. In fact, he was advised to do so by his comrades.
Saul was brought up in an elite family, he prided himself of his lineage ‘Hebrew of the Hebrews’ and for having been circumcised, a Roman Citizen (perhaps it was like holding American citizenship as on today), a student of Gameliel — esteemed prominent teacher of law. The same Saul, who went on to be known as Apostle Paul, attains the grace to call a runaway slave thief as his “son” as he writes to the Onesimus’ master Philemon “I appeal to you for my son Onesimus … I am sending him…back to you… no longer as a slave, but…, as a dear brother.”
What brought about such transformation in Paul, who hated the followers of Jesus to the point of going on a rampage killing them? Not only he himself treating the slave as equal but also appeals to his master to treat him as equal. The transformation begins when Paul met Jesus on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9:3–20) and gets to internalise Jesus’ teachings. The problem in the world today is even with the people who claim themselves to be Christians have not internalised the teachings of Jesus. In all probability the D’cuna’s have internalised the teachings of Jesus that they had the grace to treat the domestic servants with human dignity. That teaching being “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28).
The Government has enacted laws, at state level, national level and even party to most international human rights conventions, however, the difficulty in implementing them is that people do not carry the concept of equality in their inner consciousness.
“O Mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise each other)” — Holy Koran 49:13.
(Selvi Ganesh, a legal academician and consultant was a former legal advisor to the Embassy of Federal Republic of Germany, New Delhi and a former Associate Professor at Ambo University in Ethiopia. She has done her doctorate in International Law from Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.)
