UK’s Daily Mail newspaper writes that lawyer Vijay Begraj, a Dalit Hindu who married his Sikh Co-worker Amardeep Kaur, is from the bottom rung of Indian classes, often described by bigots as ‘choora’, which is the India’s version of the word ‘niggar’. The couple are suing their former law firm for among other things, unfair constructive dismissal, unauthorised deduction of wages, unpaid holiday pay and race discrimination.
LONDON – It is a love that crosses class boundaries and a religious divide but it was India’s ancient caste system that allegedly cost a British couple their jobs, pride and prospects.
In the first case of its kind in the UK, Vijay Begraj, 32, and his wife Amardeep, 33, are claiming unfair constructive dismissal on the grounds their bosses at Coventry-based solicitors Heer Manak discriminated against them because they are from different ends of the social spectrum.
Begraj, the former law firm practice manager, is a Dalit or ‘Untouchable’, India’s the lowest caste, while his wife, a solicitor, is from a higher caste called the ‘Jats’.
After a four-year friendship blossomed in the workplace the pair decided to marry.
But a Birmingham employment tribunal was told that Amardeep’s health and career had suffered at the hands of the Midlands solicitors ever since they became a couple.
Dating back to at least 1500BC there are dozens of different castes based on race and religion, with most of these represented across Britain.
Despite being outlawed in the Indian constitution during the last decade, experts say it is increasingly becoming a source of identity for young people today.
Begraj was sacked after seven years of service in 2010 and his wife resigned in January this year.
The tribunal could also find in their favour on religious grounds as he is Hindu and she is Sikh.
It is understood that Home Secretary Theresa May is watching the case carefully and considering adding a section covering caste to Britain’s equality laws as immigration has led to growing problems in this area.
The couple claim that even at their wedding barbed comments were made about them because their employers believed she was marrying beneath her.
Vijay is from the bottom rung of Indian classes, often described by bigots as ‘choora’, which is the country’s version of the word ‘niggar’.
There are between 50,000 and 200,000 people from this lowest caste living in Britain today.
One of their colleagues allegedly ‘raised a toast to Jat girls going down the drain’ on their wedding day, Amardeep said.
Their former employer is denying any claims that they were discriminated against calling them ‘outrageous’ claims.
Begraj also told the tribunal that once her bosses found out the couple were in love she was handed more work than she could cope with, given reduced help from support staff like secretaries and paid less than her colleagues.
Referring to one conversation with a senior manager, she said: ‘He said I should reconsider the step I was taking of marrying Vijay because he was of different caste. People of Vijay’s caste were different creatures, marriage would be very different from dating.’
Amardeep told the tribunal she kept her work and personal life separate and never discussed her marriage with her bosses.
‘I never discussed my relationship with my bosses.
‘They were aware of it, though we never actively talked about it.
‘Then, our relationship was fairly new – we didn’t want to cause issues so we just didn’t discuss it.
‘We’re both professional people – we know where to draw the line, where our personal lives end and jobs start.
‘Vijay was told a number of times that his position had been compromised for entering into a relationship with me.’
Under cross-examination from the respondent’s lawyer Andrew Marshall, she claimed she was denied a secretary as ‘punishment’.
She said: ‘At one informal meeting, I was told I’d have no secretarial support, which I saw as a kind of punishment.’
In December 2007 she was involved in a major car accident which meant she was unable to work for eight months.
In July 2008 she returned to the firm for a ‘back-to-work’ meeting but claimed they were reluctant for her to return because she might have been planning a family.
She said: ‘I was at the age where I’d be getting married and having a child, so they were actually trying to put me off from coming back. They were reluctant.
‘When you’ve been with a firm for so many years and they say they don’t want you back, no reasoning for why that is can be seen as remote.’
But Marshall, for the respondents, suggested that the crux of her unhappiness was that ‘the meeting could have been handled in a more sympathetic manner.’
A witness statement from Amardeep was also read out to the tribunal.
It said: ‘My relationship with Mr. Heer had always been good until my relationship with Vijay was revealed.’
Vijay and Amardeep married on August 10, 2008, at a Gurdwara Temple in Leamington Spa.
When the couple’s story first became public their car windscreen was smashed even though they had been speaking anonymously earlier this year.
Theresa May and previous Home Secretaries have powers to outlaw discrimination of this kind but have yet to use them.
It could fly in the face the Coalition’s promise to cut red tape for employers, but if the tribunal finds in the couple’s favour on their caste claims then they would probably take action.
Indian experts say the difference of skin colour is still a major issue in the country and because of Britain’s large Indian population it will also be the case here.
Both Vijay and Amardeep are claiming unfair constructive dismissal, unauthorised deduction of wages, unpaid holiday pay, race discrimination, breach of contract, discrimination on the ground of religion or belief and failure to provide a statement of the terms and conditions of employment.
Courtesy Dail Mail Newspaper
