By: Pranathi Charasala ‘25
Introduction
B. R. Ambedkar, father of the Indian Constitution, famously argued that the caste system is an inherently Hindu practice and has long been crucial to a Hindu identity. It has governed familial relationships, diets, and occupations. The caste system includes four varnas, or castes: Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya, and Shudra. The Brahmans (priests) are the highest caste, followed by the Kshatriyas (kings, soldiers, etc.), Vaishyas (merchants), and the Shudras (laborers, peasants).
The Dalits are a separate group of outcasts who are not considered a part of the system but act as the lowest rung on the ladder. Ambedkar was born as a Dalit, who are also known as the Untouchables and considered “unclean.” They have historically worked as sewage cleaners, carcass disposers, scavengers etc. Discrimination against Dalits is written into Hindu law. The Manu Smriti outlines many practices and obligations for members of each caste, which outlaws intermarriage, attending the same temples, and eating from the same utensils with people of other castes. These laws are still enforced today by some communities and have resulted in thousands of hate crimes against Dalits.
Article 17 of The Indian Constitution bans the practice of Untouchability and discrimination. Although Untouchability remains a growing issue in India, Parliament has further codified anti-caste discrimination with laws such as The Untouchability Offenses Act (1955), which outlines specific punishments if a person is found guilty of discrimination, and the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Prevention of Atrocities Act (1989), which describes further protections afforded to lower-caste individuals.
Caste, as defined by Hindu tradition and law, is a relatively new concept to the United States. However, as the Indian-American population continues to grow, multiple state governments will soon be inherently forced to confront caste. Multiple lawsuits alleging caste discrimination, such as California Department of Fair Employment & Housing v. Cisco Systems have been making headlines for workplace discrimination against Dalits. As caste awareness increases, Indian and Hindu Americans are divided about how states are tackling the problem. While Dalit activists in the U.S continue the fight for recognition, other Hindus would prefer that caste is left out of the legal sphere.
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cisco Systems
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing v. Cisco Systems will be one of the most prominent cases that address caste discrimination in the workforce in the U.S. Cisco confronts a problem within American immigration laws, which doesn’t leave room for socioeconomically diverse Indian immigrants. The Hart-Cellar Immigration Act of 1965 preferred professional immigrants with college degrees. While the Act was touted for accepting immigrants from non-European countries, it only did so by prioritizing highly skilled workers. This meant favoring upper-caste Indians who tended to be more educated, not representing the actual South Asian population. As lower-caste Indians and Dalits began trickling into the U.S as a part of the professional class, upper-caste Indian Americans had already established the caste system as a uniquely Indian problem while continuing to discriminate against other lower-caste workers. Caste was not to be discussed because it was no longer a part of the cultural identity. However the U.S up for an interesting legal debate as a growing population of Dalits began challenging the status quo.
Many Indian immigrants arrive in the U.S to work in the tech industry. With strict affirmative action laws in India, a higher percentage of Dalits are graduating with tech degrees from prominent Indian institutions and are moving to the United States. However, once lower-caste workers reach American tech companies like Cisco, human resources and management allegedly refuse to confront caste-based discrimination head on. Caste is not as easily identifiable as race by Americans but is more obvious to other Hindus who can surmise one’s caste by asking for someone’s last name, where they’re from, witnessing food and diet habits etc. This makes it difficult for upper-level management and executives to understand caste privilege and what interview questions or social settings can be construed as trying to assume one’s caste.
At Cisco Systems, the plaintiff, going by John Doe, alleged that his supervisors, who are of upper castes, denied him opportunities, adequate pay, and an inclusive workplace because he is a Dalit. Having all attended the same university in India, Doe states that his supervisors were especially aware of his caste. Although Cisco is yet to be decided, the plaintiff hopes to argue that caste discrimination falls under ancestral discrimination in California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. However, only fourteen states have such statutes about ancestry discrimination and there is no federal provision that bans its practice. The plaintiff, and some scholars, also argue that caste falls under racial discrimination as stated in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but others believe caste deserves a separate protection.
Caste is not race. Although some believe caste can be surmised by skin tone, it includes an array of other factors that are not defined within the American legal system. The Civil Rights Act may protect against discrimination on the basis of religion, national origin, and race, but doesn’t, at the least, explicitly outlaw ancestral discrimination like CA’s Fair Employment and Housing Act. This case is an opportunity for a federal court to decide if caste is protected under existing laws, and an opportunity for California to revise its laws to include specific protections against caste discrimination. If judges in Cisco decide that the employers had discriminated against Doe, the decision will give Dalit activists the platform they need to include caste as a consideration within federal law and broaden the protections afforded in California. However, in doing so, the state and federal government will have to define caste which presents a different problem. If caste is painted as solely a Hindu problem, or only defined through its context, some Hindu groups believe they will become victims.
Hindu American Foundation v. Kish (California Civil Rights Department)
Some Hindu Americans feel that adding a caste provision to American laws will only further scrutinize Hindus by placing a target on their backs. Right-wing American Hindu groups, such as HAF, believe that these provisions will limit their freedom of religion and due process rights. This lawsuit, initially filed in federal court and now being moved to a state court, comes in retaliation to California’s suit against Cisco Systems which attempts to ban caste discrimination. This case is the first of its kind, gaining traction for federal action.
The lawsuit against California alleges that the state is violating the First Amendment rights of Hindu Americans, by suing on the grounds of caste discrimination, because the state has no right to define Hinduism. HAF claims that by attempting to legally tie the caste system as an inherently Hindu system or practice, California is denying Hindu Americans procedural Due Process because it is unable to clearly define caste discrimination. The case most importantly cites the rule, as stated in the opinion of Supreme Court case McDaniel v. Paty (1978), that the “government may not use religion as a basis of classification for the imposition of duties, penalties, privileges or benefits.” In this case, the Tennessee Supreme Court was asked to review a provision (Tenn. Const. art. IX, § 1) in the state constitution that disqualifies ministers and priests from becoming state legislators. The state held that the provision was necessary to prevent such religious leaders from imposing their religion within the state legislature. However, the U.S Supreme Court reversed the decision, saying that the provision violated the clergymen’s rights to their freedom of religion under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
The justices expressed that religion and non-religion should be treated the same, extending the same rights to all citizens devoid of their religious occupation. HAF is arguing that California is not treating Hinduism with such neutrality when it states that all Hindus are involved in a discriminatory practice, like the Tennessee legislature. However, the Justices in McDaniel are clear that the Tennessee statute was unconstitutional because it penalized clergy for their occupation rather than the possible implementation of their beliefs in the legislature. Second, they stated that the clergy were prevented from exercising their freedom of religion as a condition of being a state legislator. In other words, the state was punishing the clergy for their occupation by denying them of a civil right. Lastly, the Justices concluded that Tennessee did not sufficiently prove that the clergy would try to thwart the interests of other religious sects if in power, or that such a provision was necessary to protect the separation between “church and state.”
Banning caste discrimination does not prevent the exercise of religious freedom, especially if HAF is arguing that the caste system is not Hindu. The plaintiff here suggests that in suing Cisco specifically for caste discrimination, the state is making the same mistake as Tennessee in McDaniel by trying to understand the religious agendas of Hindu Americans. However, the Justices in McDaniel are evaluating religious occupation as a reason for disqualification from the legislature, not the constitutionality of clergymen implementing their religious beliefs within the legislature. Unlike McDaniel, where there was no evidence of the clergy imposing their beliefs, in Cisco, John Doe argues that management and the company were aware of caste discrimination. In other words, there was evidence that an outdated religious practice was being used to prevent Doe, who could be construed as from another “sect,” from exercising his interests or progressing at the company. His caste was used to determine promotions, pay, and his working conditions. Legally recognizing caste discrimination would not deny Hindus equal protection or prevent their free exercise of religion under McDaniel. Outlawing caste discrimination does unnecessarily target all Hindus. Such protection would only afford the legal system a proper avenue for caste-based grievances.
HAF repeatedly alleges that California is trying to tie the caste system to Hinduism, suggesting instead that it was perpetrated by the British and has no legitimate standing within Hindu beliefs. This narrative denies the extreme realities of caste-based hate crimes and discrimination which has existed for as long as Hindu scripture itself. HAF also denies the existence of caste discrimination in other communities, for the system is not purely related to Hinduism and its practice has spread to many nations and religions. Overall, HAF’s main fallacy is that extending protections to lower-caste individuals will target all Hindus, however in the same regard that “extending protections to women has [not] scapegoat[ed] men,” providing caste protections will not discriminate against the whole Hindu population.
Discussion
Caste is very much alive in the United States and well rooted and documented within the tech industry. With the impending decision in Cisco, California will soon have an answer to whether its existing civil rights legislation encompasses caste discrimination. If the case decides that the Fair Employment and Housing Act is not sufficient enough to protect against caste prejudice, it opens up the doors for caste specific legislation. However, in doing so, courts will also begin questioning if the government has the right to analyze the part religion plays in aiding caste practices.
It’s reasonable for HAF to be concerned about how Hinduism will be perceived by the public, but Dalit’s rights activists, such as Dr. Ambedkar, have been fighting for their human and civil rights for decades. As caste discrimination grows as a concern, so will its legal presence. Multiple universities, including the University of California system and Harvard have already added provisions to include caste as a protected category, much to HAF’s dismay, and such actions will most likely only increase across industries. However, as the Indian and Hindu diaspora continues to grow, the United States is forced to grapple with religious questions that it might not understand. In the future, states will look to the decisions in Cisco and HAF to understand the caste system.