Dalit Camera: Through Un-Touchable Eyes
C. Sreetharan, Vice-President – HR, issued a notice dated April 10, 2014 stating that non-veg. food is banned (‘not permitted’) in all canteens and dining halls of The Hindu offices. He cited complaints from employees of The Hindu. He says “All are aware” that non-veg food causes “discomfort to the majority of the employees who are vegetarian.”
The notice issued by C. Sreetharan, Vice-President – HR, The Hindu, ‘reiterating’ that ‘non-veg food is strictly prohibited’ in the canteens and dining halls
It is a known and established fact that The Hindu is a Brahmin dominated newspaper. This public notice reiterates the view that the majority of the employees in The Hindu are Brahmins. Even if there are some non-Brahmins, they have to become vegetarian and therefore, Brahmins in thinking.
Endorsing Brahmin food culture is nothing but casteism in India. Veteran journalist B N Uniyal rightly told us that the absence of Dalits and other subordinated castes in the media is nothing but modern untouchability (social exclusion). Untouchability operates in a subtle manner in modern public institutions.Demands like reservations in the private sector and slogans like corporate social responsibility have no meaning in the Brahminical Hindu paper.
The public notice of The Hindu attracts section 3 (x) of THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989:
(x) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
The notice of The Hindu management is nothing but insulting the Dalit-bahujans and non-Brahmin castes and their food cultures.
When will the day come when Dalit journalists conduct beef festivals in media houses in this great democracy!
Read a former insider’s comments below:
“What are the implications of running a media organisation [the Hindu] for over a century with an overwhelming number of twice-born? What are the implications of creating a feeder organisation (read ACJ) to ‘train’ more twice-borns for this work? What sort of training can an organisation run and taught almost exclusively by the twice-born offer? How can you maintain this obscene proportion of twice-born employees in a state that is a trend-setter in affirmative action? And how many of you who loved and shared my last piece will share this one?”