Buraku Mondai in Japan:
Historical and Modern Perspectives and Directions for the Future[*]

Emily A. Su-lan Reber[**]

INTRODUCTION

Arguments: An Overview

The current state of legal, political, and sociological affairs in Japan constitutes an unfit stage for the eradication of discrimination against burakumin and the improvement of socioeconomic conditions among burakumin. First, federal law affords no protection to victims of discrimination[1]: no anti-discrimination law exists, and access to certain government documents that can alert prospective employers and marriage partners to one’s family lineage is not adequately restricted.[2] Second, the limited nature of debate on buraku mondai constrains the possibility of a democratic and resourceful solution to the problem. Two opposing political organizations dominate the discourse regarding buraku mondai. Moreover, many people in Japan believe the best remedy for prejudice and discrimination is to ignore these problems. Third, the form of political redress regarding buraku mondai ironically propogates, while in other ways counters, discrimination against burakumin. Single buraku organizations, varying by community, but most often the Buraku Kaiho Domei, or Buraku Liberation League (BLL), have been delegated almost full control over the administration of government-sponsored programs for burakumin. The BLL (nearly exclusively) offers the available relief to victims of

discrimination in the form of “denunciation.”[3] Government programs addressing buraku mondai target burakumin specifically, thereby eliciting contempt by non-burakumin, and are limited in scope. Historically, most programs have provided funding for the improvement of physical conditions of buraku districts and have neglected to provide other necessary programs.[4] Discourse and political reform should be expanded to reach a broader cross-section of the government and population, for the ease and benefit of both the political actors-reformists and the targeted population.

This Article presents further ideas to determine which actions of the government and liberation movement might best facilitate the realization of buraku liberation and the elimination of discrimination. Part I provides an introduction to the origins of discrimination against burakumin, an explanation of the historical efforts of both the liberation movement and the Japanese government in combating discrimination against burakumin, the present conditions of burakumin, and the policies and policymaking regarding buraku mondai. Part II makes concrete the facts and points stated in Part I through a presentation of the history and current issues of one particular buraku district—Asaka buraku. Part III explores several current issues surrounding buraku mondai by weighing opposing opinions of the liberation movement’s two most vocal organizations. Part IV is a summary of analytical findings. Part V offers policy recommendations to eliminate discrimination against, and improve the conditions of, burakumin.

Definitions

Buraku Mondai

As defined in the 1965 Report of the Integration Measures Deliberation Council, a consultative body of the Prime Minister’s Office, buraku mondai is:

a most serious and important social problem deriving from the fact that a segment of the Japanese people, owing to discrimination based on a class system formed in the process of the historical development of the Japanese society, is placed in such an inferior position economically, socially and culturally that their fundamental human rights are grossly violated even in present-day society and that, in particular, their civil rights and liberties, which are en-

---

*** Top of Page 299 ***

sured to all people as a principle of modern society, are not fully guaranteed in reality.[5]

Buraku mondai is a multi-faceted term that includes (1) issues of prejudice and discrimination in such areas as employment and marriage, based on buraku status, (2) inferior socioeconomic conditions of burakumin, and (3) the liberation movement’s efforts and government measures aimed at rectifying these problems.

Buraku

There are thousands of buraku communities in Japan with a total of a few million residents.[6] In general, buraku are concentrated along western Japan, although the only prefectures that historically have had no buraku are Hokkaido and Okinawa, the northernmost and southernmost prefectures. Buraku are generally located in areas ill-suited for human habitation, “such as ill-drained low damp ground, junction of two rivers . . . slopes in valleys.”[7] Knowledge about buraku mondai within Japan, therefore, is correspondingly inconsistent.

Burakumin

Although a neat and simple definition of burakumin would be ideal, the only consistent identifying feature of burakumin is that they are discriminated against. Defining burakumin today is a political task, not an everyday academic undertaking. Buraku means literally “hamlet” or “community,” and the suffix min means “people.”[8] To define burakumin, however, is an imperfect science. By historical definition, burakumin are descendants of outcasts from the Tokugawa Period[9] (mainly eta and hinin,[10] as those terms were developed prior to, but employed mostly during, the Tokugawa Period, 1600–1867[11]). Although ethnically,[12] linguistically, and racially indistin

guishable from other Japanese,[13] burakumin did and still do fall victim to discrimination in varying degrees because of their status in the Tokugawa Period. The origin of this discrimination has been traced to a combination of: (1) government efforts to control the masses (divide-and-rule theory)[14]; (2) the demand for a constant supply of certain types of occupational labor; and (3) Shinto and Buddhist concepts of filth and the killing of animals that placed a stigma on many occupations previously or subsequently performed by the buraku people.

According to Takashi Tsukada, a leading historian of Tokugawa Period Japan, during the early Tokugawa period, eta held monopolies in their traditional occupations in leather processing and disposing of cows and horses; other traditional outcast jobs included those in the leather, meat, shoe, and bamboo goods industries. Predecessors of burakumin also did the same jobs as some non-burakumin, namely agricultural production, and daily labor. Individuals in other occupations such as cloth-dying also frequently faced discrimination, even though they were not outcasts. Burakumin were subject to various discriminatory regulations, usually only by local decree, and never by national laws, including those that restricted their freedom of residence. Thus, communities of these outcasts were formed, many of which are perpetuated as buraku to this day.[15]

Today, the definition of burakumin is much less fixed. The word burakumin will be used in this Article to refer to two different but overlapping groups of people: those who have ancestors who were treated as outcasts in the Tokugawa Period, and the broader group of people who have come to be identified as having relationships with burakumin and thereby have become objects of discrimination, based on factors including but not limited to kinship, place of residence and occupation. In general, I refer to the latter group of people in this Article. This most inclusive definition of burakumin is as follows:

those people who were born, brought up and living in [b]uraku, those who were not from [b]urakumin family but came to live in [b]uraku in the recent past and those who are living outside the [b]uraku but have blood relationship with [b]urakumin—all these are considered the [b]urakumin minority by the majority Japanese.[16]

---

*** Top of Page 301 ***

This definition embraces those other than descendants of Tokugawa Period outcasts who, as a matter of convenience or by societal ignorance or negligence, have come to be labeled, or are at risk of being labeled, as burakumin.

A host of other terms are used by different circles of Japanese society to refer specifically to defined groups of burakumin. For example, the BLL defines burakumin as those people living within buraku communities, and terms them hisabetsu burakumin, or discriminated-against hamlet people.[17] Another liberation group called the Zenkoku Buraku Kaiho Undo Rengokai (All Japan Federation of Buraku Liberation), commonly abbreviated Zenkairen, terms them mikaiho burakumin, which means unliberated hamlet people.[18] The government, on the other hand, since 1985 has called buraku districts dowa chiku,[19] referring to government recognized buraku areas. The differences in terminology as utilized by different groups stem from differences in ideology and reflect the aims and considerations of the different players involved in buraku mondai.[20]

Population Statistics

The largest number of buraku was recorded in 1935 by government survey at 5371 areas, while the smallest number, 3570, was recorded in 1967. A 1993 survey recognized 4442 areas. These numbers are imperfect, however, in part because these areas have been inconsistently defined. At times only areas receiving government improvement assistance at the time were counted; at other times, areas already “improved” at the time of the survey were not included.[21] In addition, those burakumin living outside of dowa areas (government recognized buraku[22]) were also not covered. According to the same survey, the 1993 population of residents in the 4442 dowa areas was 892,751. However, the BLL has estimated that there are up to 6000 buraku and over 3 million burakumin.[23] All of these figures, however, include many

residents of buraku who are not of buraku ancestry, and also the areas included in buraku are often larger than the historical boundaries of the buraku, and thus the number of residents counted is also much greater.

It seems that the BLL’s figures more closely approximate the actual number of buraku areas, since government statistics include only those areas officially recognized.[24] Population statistics, on the other hand, are more elusive. If one were to include only those people who are of buraku ancestry, the numbers would be lower than those recorded either by the government or liberation organizations because of the increasingly inclusive definition of burakumin.

I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

A. Origins of Discrimination

Japan’s Tokugawa Period status system, in which the position of the outcast was fixed, was based on the prior medieval status system of Japan. Under the supremacy of the shogunate and the shogunate’s family were essentially five classes: the samurai (warriors), farmers, artisan-craftsmen, merchants and the outcasts—variously known as eta and hinin, now called burakumin. “It was during the Tokugawa feudal regime, beginning in the 17th century, when warrior-administrators came into power, that the [predecessors of] burakumin were legally stigmatized as outcasts.”[25] Although people could be relegated to the status of outcast by committing a crime or violating society’s regulations, the reverse became impossible. Even descendants of

outcasts who came to work in traditionally non-outcast occupations, such as farming and fishing, could not escape the status prescribed by heredity.[26]

“During the Tokugawa feudal era, both the central and district governments had numerous regulations that rigidly regulated the lives of the [eta, hinin, and other classes].”[27] The regulations were neither uniform in word nor in enforcement, since they often originated in social custom and were subsequently transformed into laws in some areas, many times when individual outcasts began to challenge the discriminatory traditions. A few of the most significant restrictions were the forbiddance of inter-marriage, designation of places to live (in ghetto communities), dictation of clothing style and color, and extreme limitations on interactions with commoners.[28] In addition, “[n]ot only were the kinds of occupations which the [outcasts] could pursue limited, but in some districts they could not own land or engage in farming[, nor] . . . engage in commercial fishing.”[29]

A number of theories have been advanced to explain the origins of the outcast status in Tokugawa Japan. Most are flawed in some way. In abbreviated form, they are as follows:

• Religious notions of filth

Beginning in the early Heian Period (794–1185), the coexistence of Shinto and Buddhism caused their teachings to mix.[30] Buddhist teachings of compassion for all living things led to the government decree prohibiting the slaughtering of animals.[31] Shintoism placed emphasis on purity and cleanliness, or conversely, “pollution and avoidance of defilement (which was associated with death).”[32] Together, these teachings gave religious impetus and justification for discrimination against outcasts. “Those who were engaged in the unpleasant but essential tasks of handling the deceased and disposing of dead animals from the temple grounds [and those who worked in such occupations as butchering and processing raw skins] were considered polluted and they were prohibited from participating in religious rites.”[33]

• Occupation

Another historical explanation attributes the status of outcast to participation in one of several distinct occupations. This explanation fails to account, however, for the numerous people discriminated against as eta and hinin who did not work in one of these typically outcast occupations. Nor does this rationalization explain the inconsistency between different locales of the association of occupation and discrimination.

• Divide-and-rule theory

Yasumasa Hirasawa asserts that the origins of discrimination against burakumin were the product of a feudal strategy of divide-and-rule, implemented in the following order: feudal lords, at the top of the hierarchy, appeased peasants and farmers, whom they exploited for their agricultural production capabilities, and the bottom, outcasts, designated to perform the leftover “less-favored but socially indispensable labor functions” and to bear the brunt of misguided peasant and farmer hostility. “Thus the divide-and-rule policy was effectively executed through psychological manipulation.”[34]

There appears to be no simple explanation of the origins of burakumin and of discrimination against them. The truth of the origins of buraku discrimination lies probably in a combination of some of the many explanations offered. The key points are that: (1) the status of outcast existed over the course of several centuries in Japan, (2) the vestiges of discrimination against these outcasts remain, and (3) none of the historical explanations of why the status of outcast existed in the past justify the continuance of this status in Japan today.

B. Results and Limitations: Pre-WWII Buraku Liberation (1871–1945)

1. Meiji Revolution and the Emancipation Edict

On August 28, 1871, the collapse of the Tokugawa feudal regime, the erosion of the shogunate and status system and the establishment of the Meiji government in the Meiji Revolution (Meiji Ishin), which brought about dramatic social change in Japan, led the Council of State to issue the Emancipation Edict. It stated: “The titles of [e]ta and [h]inin shall be abolished; and henceforth the people belonging to these classes shall be treated in the same manner both in occupation and social standing as the common people (heimin).”[35] It required equivalent types of occupations and social standing for the eta and heimin.[36]

The Emancipation Edict resulted in “enhanced legal status [of burakumin] at the cost of intensified social discrimination and loss of economic privileges.”[37] The government did not provide burakumin with any type of assistance, financial or otherwise, while samurai (warriors) relieved of their status under a separate edict were provided loans by the Meiji Government to aid them in beginning new lives in agriculture and other endeavors.[38] No other measures were taken to ensure the true liberation of the former outcast population until two years short of a century later.[39]

2. Continued Practices of Discrimination

In the absence of positive government action, private and government practices discriminating against burakumin perpetuated the outcast status.[40] For example, in efforts to repress about ten eta and hinin families and confine them to their pre-Emancipation Edict ways, members of a village in Gifu prefecture formed a discriminatory compact promising discrimination against burakumin in areas of property rights, social interactions, financial resources and employment.[41]

Discriminatory actions also continued at the governmental level:

• In 1880 (less than ten years after the Emancipation Edict was disseminated), the Ministry of Justice referred to burakumin as “the lowliest of people, resembling animals” in its “A Handbook of Japanese Customs and Folkways.”[42]

• In 1922, Oita prefecture authorities effected the burning down of a buraku when an imperial family member was expected to pass on a nearby railroad; the public explanation was that it contained “criminals and drifters” and was also “a health hazard.”[43]

• In a notorious case of May 1933, the District Court of Takematsu ruled: “‘Burakumin committed a crime by getting married without disclosing his origin to the partner of marriage.’“[44] It should be no surprise that institutionalized discrimination continued long after the Emancipation Edict to preserve a de facto caste system from which it was extremely difficult, if not impossible, to emerge. Government officials were equally subject to discriminatory social pressures.

3. Birth of the Buraku Liberation Movement and Government Assistance

On March 3, 1922, the buraku liberation movement began officially with the formation of the Suiheisha (National Leveler’s Association) in Kyoto. Unlike prior efforts of activists who were most concerned with buraku self-improvement, the Suiheisha “advocated humanistic principles that emphasized utmost respect for the dignity of human beings.” The Suiheisha fought for improved living conditions of burakumin, and to eliminate discrimination against burakumin.[45]

The 1920s and 1930s saw improvements in the circumstances of burakumin, partly afforded by subsidies from local and national governments. Matsumoto Jiichiro, chairman of the Suiheisha, was elected to the Imperial Diet

in 1936.[46] Other burakumin tried to assert their identity as burakumin and equal to others. During World War II, however, the war effort dominated all other concerns. In 1942, the Japanese government passed anti-movement legislation during a period of growing fascist rule. All efforts were subordinated to helping Japan win the war, and the Suiheisha was dissolved. All improvement projects for burakumin begun before WWII were put on hold during WWII.

C. Revival of the Buraku Liberation Movement: Enforcement of the Post-War Constitution of Japan (“Nihonkoku Kenpo,” 1946)

In August of 1945, Japan surrendered to the Allies. In 1946, a new Constitution, the Nihonkoku Kenpo [hereinafter Kenpo] took over the political-legal landscape, replacing the Constitution of the great Japanese Empire (Dai Nihon Teikoku Kenpo [hereinafter Meiji Kenpo], 1889).[47] A notion of the people’s sovereignty overtook the old-fashioned absolutism of the eradicated Emperor system. The liberation movement was born anew with the principles of post-war democracy and human rights on its conscience. Article 14, paragraph 1 of the Kenpo states: “All people are equal under the law and there shall be no discrimination in political, economic or social relations because of race, creed, sex, social status or family origin.”[48] Further, Article 98 declares the supremacy of the Kenpo over all domestic laws, regulations, and the like, and also that “[t]he treaties concluded by Japan and established laws of nations shall be faithfully observed.”[49]

In February of 1946, leaders of the pre-war Suiheisha reassembled in Kyoto and established the Buraku Kaiho Zenkoku Iinkai (National Committee for Buraku Liberation) electing Matsumoto Jiichiro, father of buraku liberation, as chairman. In 1947, Matsumoto was elected to be Vice President of the House of Councilors (upper house of Diet).[50] The National Committee for Buraku Liberation was renamed the Buraku Kaiho Domei, or Buraku Liberation League (BLL) in August of 1955,[51] after which membership skyrocketed, and massive efforts began to induce the government to improve the conditions of buraku.[52]

In 1951, local governments started to implement improvement policies, spurred in part by the “All Romance Incident” in which a local government official wrote a derogatory and fantastic novel about life in a buraku. The national government began to give small subsidies to the local governments for improvement of buraku areas in 1953.[53] In 1960, the Law to Establish a Deliberative Council for Buraku Assimilation was legislated and the Deliberative Council for Buraku Assimilation (Council) was established in 1961. The Council was a government fact-finding committee appointed by the Prime Minister and composed of bureaucrats, politicians, and experts from society, including some burakumin, whose purpose was to study the buraku situation and recommend possible action.[54]

1. Government Report of 1965

In August of 1965, the Council issued a report entitled “Fundamental Measures for the Solution of Social and Economic Problems of Buraku Areas” with the authorization of the Prime Minister. For the first time ever, the government publicly admitted that buraku discrimination existed. This report is still highly regarded as a landmark document in the history of positive government involvement in buraku mondai. Its content closely resembles the thinking of the BLL.

In the report, the Council emphatically denied the scientifically unsupported but widely held belief that [b]urakumin are racially or ethnically different from other Japanese and that their situation is related to, if not justified by, their origins . . . . [It also] rejected the common idea that the best solution would be to ignore the problem on the assumption that calling attention to it would merely perpetuate it and delay its inevitable dissolution by economic and social changes.[55]

The causes of the condition of burakumin were attributed to “social and economic discrimination denying [b]urakumin freedom of occupational choice, equal educational opportunities, freedom of movement, and freedom of marriage and social intercourse” rather than intrinsic inferiority.[56] It also described the Emancipation Edict as “purely formalistic” and ineffective, and expressed disapproval of the government’s efforts toward remedying the effects of buraku discrimination as “incomplete, paternalistic, and limited to improvements in the physical environment.”[57]

The Report cited discrimination as responsible for the horrific living conditions, inferior education, and stilted to non-existent interactions with the majority of the burakumin, and declared it the “state’s duty to resolve the problem fundamentally and promptly, based on a correct understanding of its causes and structures.”[58]

Broad policy recommendations were extended, the first of which was the need for special legislation. No laws existed at that time for the sole benefit of burakumin, although burakumin did receive aid under general welfare programs. The report concluded that an enabling statute was needed to allow the government to legislate special measures for the buraku problem.[59]

2. Special Measures Laws

Out of the Deliberative Council’s Report were born the first national fruits of buraku legislation. In July of 1969, the national government implemented the Dowa Taisaku Jigyo Tokubetsu Sochi Ho, the Law on Special Measures for Dowa [Assimilation] Projects.[60] From that time until the present, laws similar to the Special Measures Law have provided funds for improvements of buraku areas, educational scholarships and aid to small buraku businesses. Unfortunately, the Special Measures Law “[gave] broad authority for governmental action while mandating virtually nothing. [It created] no legal duties on the part of government agencies and no new legal rights for individuals, either in the form of private causes of action against other individuals or administrative causes of action against public entities.”[61]

This 1969 law allows autonomous local bodies (most often local branches of the BLL) to improve houses and roads, give scholarships, reduce taxes for small to medium buraku businesses, offer loans at low interest rates, and establish enlightenment programs such as publications for the parent-teacher

association.[62] In the sixteen years before this first national legislation (from 1953 to 1968), the national government spent a total of 17.8 billion yen on improvements.[63] In the thirteen-year period after the Law on Special Measures was passed, 1969 to 1982, the government appropriated over one hundred times more funds (approximately 2 trillion yen) for projects.[64]

The first succeeding legislation on dowa projects was named Chiiki Kaizen Taisaku Tokubetsu Sochi Ho (Law on Special Fiscal Measures for Regional Improvement). It was enacted in 1982 and remained in effect for five years until March 31, 1987. In contrast to the 1969 law, its title does not include an explicit reference to buraku mondai or buraku communities. It refers to area improvements in general, although, in effect, the beneficiaries remained those qualified residents living within the boundaries of government recognized dowa areas. Under this law the government ceased recognizing buraku that had not yet been recognized as dowa chiku, and thus no new communities were eligible to receive government improvement assistance.[65]

The third law aimed at buraku liberation is the Law for Special Fiscal Measures for Area Improvement Projects. It was enacted in 1987 for a five-year period ending on March 31, 1992, but was subsequently extended for five more years until March 31, 1997, and then amended and extended in part for up to another five years. Unlike the first two laws, it does not state that its existence is based on the responsibility of the Japanese government to eliminate discrimination against burakumin, and it excludes areas that were improved under the previous two laws. Prior to this law, secondary education grants were offered to burakumin students, but under this law, loans were extended in place of grants.[66]

D. Current Achievements and Remaining Problems

1. Split in the BLL and the Formation of the Zenkairen

A breakdown in the alliance between the BLL and Japanese Communist Party (JCP) began in the 1960s, following the death of Matsumoto Jiichiro, in 1960, who was a JCP member and an influential Suiheisha and BLL leader for decades. At the time of the rice riots in 1918, Marxist and other revolutionary ideas were spreading among the working class, causing the

government great concern. Although, prior to World War I, the JCP supported efforts of the Suiheisha, it was more interested in the class struggle implications rather than the anti-discrimination and human rights aspects.[67] “The JCP members argued that the basis of discrimination was the capitalists’ oppression of the working class . . . . They felt that the Levelers should dissolve their association in the interest of working toward a proletariat revolution.”[68]

The breakdown in the relationship between the JCP and the BLL was spurred by the adoption of the 1969 Special Measures Law, which, for the first time allowed, the leftist BLL to work with the conservative Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) government to secure funds for buraku liberation. Also, according to Okuyama, executive director of the Institute of Buraku Problem, the split was accelerated when president of the BLL Matsumoto Jiichiro ran for Congress in the national precinct and won a place in the Senate. The BLL expected its members to vote for him, a Socialist party member. When Communist party members of the BLL would not vote for a Socialist, they were excluded from the BLL.[69]

The Report of August 1965 caused another conflict between the supporters of Communist and Socialist parties, due to philosophical differences concerning their views on how to attain buraku liberation.[70] Just after the report was issued, and “much to the shock of the Liberation League elders, the JCP denounced the report as a ‘poisonous cake’ (doku manju), or a watered-down government version of the original demands for liberation.”[71] Conversely, the BLL reacted supportively to the government’s increased funding of buraku improvement projects.[72] Later, in 1965, at the 20th Annual National Buraku Liberation League Convention, the BLL officially accepted the Deliberative Council’s Integration Policy Report, which was considered “a victory in the continuing process toward complete liberation.”[73] An irreconcilable difference developed in concepts between those who perceived of buraku mondai as a phenomenon “deeply embedded in prejudice and discrimination,” and others who supported the JCP opinion that “capital oppression was the basic source of the depressed status of all proletariats.”[74]

In March of 1976, the Zenkoku Buraku Kaiho Undo Rengokai (All Japan Federation of Buraku Liberation), commonly abbreviated Zenkairen, was formed by members of the Buraku Kaiho Domei Seijoka Zenkoku Renraku Kai

(Buraku Liberation League National Normalizing Liaison Association), which included members excluded from the BLL.

The Zenkairen, which rejected the reconciliation (yuwa) position and opposed the militant (boryoku) practice, resolved to sacrifice a fight for as many benefits as possible under the Special Measures Law in favor of full integration with the majority population and harmony within and without the buraku. [75] For this purpose it sought to organize the poor in and out of buraku to fight against government oppression. In 1975, the Communist party officially adopted the National Integration Policy in its annual platform, and thereby ensured strong ties with the Zenkairen.[76] The philosophies and actions of the Zenkairen contrasted sharply with those of the BLL, as they do today.

2. Background Investigations

Numerous remaining hardships face burakumin today.[77] Burakumin confront discrimination in employment and marriage.[78] Even if they do not identify themselves as burakumin, parents and businesses often conduct background investigations into the origins of potential marriage partners and job candidates to discover whether people are of buraku,[79] Korean, or other discriminated-against descent. Some of the tools used for conducting a personal background investigation are described below.

a. Chimei Sokan (“Buraku Lists”)

The existence of buraku lists was first discovered in November 1975, and since that time at least nine others have been found.[80] Although format and content vary, in general the following holds true:

A [b]uraku list (Chimei Sokan) is a book-length compilation of name, location, number of households and main occupations of the

---

*** Top of Page 312 ***

occupants, of some 5,300 [b]uraku throughout Japan, grouped according to prefecture. The format is that of a weekly magazine (18 X 25 cm) and usually comprises more than 200 pages.[81]

Most of these lists were compiled between 1970 and 1975,[82] just after the Special Measures Law was passed and restrictions concerning access to personal information were first implemented: public access to individual people’s census registers had been limited, and the Ministry of Labor’s high school application forms had been revised to exclude prior questions regarding family finances, occupations, and religion.[83]

Purchasers of the lists were mostly Japan’s largest companies, including Toyota, Nissan, Kubota and Yasuda Trust Bank.[84] Some of the stated reasons for purchasing these lists to avoid hiring burakumin seem to be the following: (1) burakumin are looked down upon and thus would be detrimental to company images and customer relations; (2) excluding burakumin from employment is necessary to maintain social harmony among employees who might harbor prejudice against burakumin themselves; and (3) not having burakumin would avoid potential problems with the BLL if a burakumin were to be upset by being fired or by a discriminatory occurrence in everyday operations.

b. Koseki (“Family Register”)

In 1872, at the start of the Meiji Era, the koseki (family register) system was established. The purported government purpose was to maintain records of population and to create a database for conscription.[85] Addresses, births and deaths in the family, and social status (in the old koseki) of all heads of family were recorded and held open as public record. The Meiji Restoration brought about changes in the koseki, such as the nuclear family being registered without reference to extended family or ancestors; however, the old

koseki was not destroyed and certain people, such as investigators and lawyers, could still access the old records.[86]

In 1968, after protests by the BLL to the Justice Ministry, the koseki ceased to be an item freely available for public perusal. Permission of the family whose vital statistics were involved became requisite, except that in infrequent cases, the permission of the Minister of Justice was sufficient.[87] Unfortunately, refusing to grant permission to view one’s family’s records sets off an alarm, “suspicion is aroused,” and usually a private detective is able to do other investigations, perhaps in the subject’s hometown, to make a decision on his or her family background.[88] “[I]n June 1976, the law was changed so that anyone who wanted access to the family registers must first stipulate the purpose for which he wanted to use the koseki.”[89]

Some critics of the koseki do not think that the koseki needs to be preserved; others argue not for its demolition but a simplification and generalization of its contents, perhaps requiring only the town or city of one’s birth instead of one’s exact address and precinct.

c. Temple Registers

In the past, temple registers were also utilized to determine the social status of individuals. When the first modern census was taken in Japan a little over a hundred years ago, the name of the Buddhist temple with which the family had its affiliation was recorded. Burakumin were compelled to go to segregated temples; thus a family’s temple membership is a source of information as well as past in-group associations.[90]

Temple registers exist as documentation for historical purposes, not for the purpose of discrimination. Unfortunately, there is potential for them to be abused for discriminatory purposes. Accordingly, whereas temples formerly produced their registers upon request, the main branch is now under informal obligation to the BLL not to show these registers to the general public. If the temple leaders keep their promise, the destruction of temple registers is neither requisite nor beneficial, because they are records of important historical and personal data such as the days of people’s deaths, which dictate the days and years in which memorial services should be held. Furthermore, it is commonly held that priests receive most of their income from just these types of ceremonies, so they do not wish to have these records abolished.[91]

In addition to temple registers, the Buddhist practice of giving posthumous names to temple members allowed for post-mortem discrimination against burakumin. In some cases, deceased burakumin were given derogatory posthumous names, inscribed on the backside of their tombstones. In various instances, these posthumous names have been consulted to identify the status of potential spouses and employees.[92]

3. Government Report of 1996 and Extension of the Law

On May 17, 1996 the Consultative Council on Regional Improvement Measures, organized by the Management and Coordination Agency of the National Government, submitted its opinion on buraku mondai, the first report of its kind since the 1965 Report. Among the findings in this report are the following: discrimination remains despite some headway made by the special measure laws; the 1965 Report should continue to elicit respect as buraku discrimination has not fallen from the list of important topics in Japanese society; approaching the twenty-first century of human rights and consistent with Japan’s adoption of international human rights laws such as the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,[93] Japan is obliged to work toward the abolition of discrimination against burakumin as a human rights violation; and “the expiration of the current Law Regarding the Special Fiscal Measures of the Government for Regional Improvement Projects does not mean the abandonment of dowa measures. The solution to [b]uraku discrimination should be actively sought, including a legislative measure.”[94] Human rights education and enlightenment must be undertaken, “where dowa education will be placed as an important pillar.” A system of redress for those whose human rights have been violated and studies to inform future projects was also considered requisite.[95]

In March of 1997 the Diet approved with partial revision a five-year extension of the Law Regarding the Special Fiscal Measures of the Government for Regional Improvement Projects.[96] In addition to improvement measures laws, the Diet enacted in December 1996 the Jinken Yogo Seisaku Sokushin Ho, the Law for the Promotion for Measures of Human Rights Protection, which became effective in January of 1997. This law directs government to establish the Council for Promoting Human Rights Protection, which will analyze buraku mondai and create policy recommendations for human rights

education and enlightenment and recommendations for relief measures for the victims of human rights violations all within a five-year framework.[97] These laws are in line with the trend that began with the changes in the Area Improvements Law of 1982, which draws attention to the more general problem of human rights and away from buraku mondai.[98] Supporters of these laws applaud them for their objective of examining the problem of discrimination on an all-inclusive basis, of which buraku mondai is but one part. The BLL supports the creation of the 1996 Law for the Promotion of Measures of Human Rights Protection, while the Zenkairen is opposed. A more elaborate discussion of this split appears in Part III.

II. EVALUATION OF THE CURRENT SITUATION OF BURAKU MONDAI—ASAKA BURAKU

The difficulty of undoing centuries of social, political, and economic discrimination cannot be understated, but substantial progress is possible if there is the will to achieve justice and an effort to undo historical misconceptions.[99] In dowa areas recognized by the government to receive funds from the special measures laws, large strides have been made in achieving physical improvements of the living environment, and to improve primary and secondary education. Unfortunately, there has been less progress in buraku not recognized by the government, and in addressing employment and marriage discrimination, social prejudice, and nationwide dowa education. In addition, buraku mondai has evolved to include new problems.

To understand and evaluate the implementation and effects of improvement measures over the past several decades, a concrete look at the history and real conditions of Asaka buraku is useful as a case study to discuss what has occurred in most dowa communities.

A. History of Asaka Buraku

There is no “typical” buraku—not in terms of population, socioeconomic conditions, geography, intra-buraku politics, time frames, or any other measure. Accordingly, some efforts will be made in this Section to supplement information about Asaka buraku and its population with comparative facts from other buraku communities. The primary emphasis will remain on Asaka buraku.

In 1721 the area of the Asaka buraku was redeveloped for housing after which kawata, or hide tanners, came from Settsu, Kawachi and Izumi provinces, which were all within the boundaries of current day Osaka, to work and live together. This was the birth of Asaka buraku, though it was called Sugimoto Shinden (“newly explored paddies in Sugimoto Village”)[100] until 1925. Sugimoto Shinden had separated from Sugimoto Village in 1883 and Asaka and Yosami Village merged into Osaka City, leaving Asaka-cho to exist alone.

While records are scarce, the following is known about the history of living conditions in Asaka. Throughout the Shogunate Rule (1603–1867), Asaka buraku residents subsisted by doing jobs such as transporting water from the Yamato River for agricultural use in times of poor irrigation, treating dead cattle and horses, and subcontracting from sharecroppers. Systematic status discrimination precluded them from engaging in other jobs with higher remuneration.[101]

According to a survey of 1898, burakumin in the Meiji Era (1868–1912), possibly including Asaka residents as well, “engaged in used material collecting, manual labor, agricultural labor or miscellaneous jobs,” and barely made ends meet.[102] In the Taisho Era (1912–1925), Asaka consisted of approximately 200 families of 1000 residents. Used material collectors were the majority, though petty farmers and day laborers were also plentiful.[103]

In August of 1918, the nationwide rice riots began in Japan. After World War I, the economy of Japan had improved, but prices had also risen.[104] [[ Poor people suffered the most from the price hikes due to their small budgets. There are said to have been about 500 disturbances in places within Osaka prefecture, involving clashes between citizens and the police and armies, resulting in injuries and deaths.[105] This was the first time Asaka resi-

dents were a part of a national struggle. It provided them with a taste of possibilities to come.

During the early Showa Era (1925–1945), farming and waste collecting were the most common jobs for burakumin, and the beginnings of what would become branches of the Sumiyoshi Agriculture Cooperative were formed. Concerning geography, “the actual space of Asaka was reduced and access restricted by various projects around the town.” To the west was Osaka College of Commerce, later Osaka City University; to the north a new subway yard was built; to the south was a Tennoji-Abiko road extension; and to the east, the Yamata River ran.[106] It is unlikely that a non-buraku community would have undergone developments that operated to isolate and separate it.

Prior to government improvements, Asaka buraku existed above and on both slopes of the west bank of the Yamato River. “Over 200 households lived on the riverbed, on the inner side of the bank, where it is in fact a part of reserve river flow,” making them vulnerable to storms and floods. Many families did not have the benefit of tap water supply, central sewage disposal, or private lavatories. Tin house roofs were common. Insects infested the housing due to the high humidity near the river. And the narrow width of roads did not allow motor vehicles, including fire engines, to pass.[107]

In 1974, there were 3,000 residents of Asaka and its population density soared at 1.6 times the city average. There was no dry goods or grocery store in town, and schools, both primary and junior high schools were much farther than the city standard walking distance. There was not one doctor in the town.[108]

In addition, poverty was rampant. Few families received government relief, however, due to a combination of distrust among burakumin of government assistance, discrimination excluding burakumin from obtaining government services, and a lack of knowledge among burakumin regarding their rights to, and the availability of, relief. “The consequence was a vicious circle of dire poverty leading to illness or disability and an early death.”[109]

To combat these and other problems, residents of Asaka rallied together to fight for benefits from the government and equality within society. Early struggles in Asaka, however, were not entirely successful.[110] In July of 1965,

Asaka residents formed the Asaka Area Housing Improvement Union[111] and began to demand improvements from the government’s Yamato River Construction Work Office and the Kinki Regional Construction Bureau of the Construction Ministry,[112] using the previous successes of Yata and Sumiyoshi buraku liberation movements as models. In 1965, the Asaka Local of the BLL was founded, despite the prevalence of the “don’t wake a sleeping child” (see “Society” in Part IV) rhetoric.[113] When government improvement projects were begun, this organization was called upon to be the administrator of these projects, under the government policy of madoguchi ippo (one window), to be discussed in Part III.

The history of the liberation movement in Asaka is consistent with the BLL’s history of administrative struggle. The beginning phases of development, from 1965 to 1970, consisted of efforts to improve housing and infrastructure. In 1968, Asaka buraku won its first housing complex in the north-western part of the inner town under general government measures. This was the beginning of government housing construction in Asaka, which lasted almost two decades: the eastern half of the town received 138 apartments; in 1986, twenty-seven apartments were planned to be built in the western part of the inner village.[114] Community roads were constructed and a road for emergency vehicle traffic was built along the river, next to 800 meters of newly planted cherry trees.[115] Today, 70% of Asaka residents now reside in public housing. “Nevertheless, the average space for housing is about forty square yards, eight square yards less and twenty square yards less than the prefecture and national housing average[s, respectively].”[116]

The second stage of empowerment, from 1971 to 1975, involved the strengthening of the BLL’s youth and women groups, by joining the national BLL struggle in the realms of denunciation and the Sayama Mistrial Struggle, which aimed to free Mr. Kazuo Ishikawa from jail after (the BLL and some others allege) he was falsely charged and imprisoned based on his

burakumin identity.[117] A community after-school classroom building was built in 1974 and programs such as the Children Association (in which children join together for activities), Extra School Study Programs, and High School Subjects Study Programs, were initiated.[118]

From 1975 to 1980, residents of Asaka came together to create a vision, and to work on a plan for the future of their town. They formed the Executive Committee for Comprehensive Planning on March 14, 1976 with the aim of “building Asaka anew into a town of liberation, education and people’s autonomy in every [aspect] of the environment, education, employment, daily life and culture.”[119] Also, the BLL conducted negotiations with the Osaka City Authorities, which resulted in the promise by local authorities “for the total removal of the subway yard, the reconstruction of the river bank and the riverbed of the Yamato River and the total renovation of all poor housing in the town center.”[120] In October of 1989, just before the total removal of the City Subway Yard, the Council for the Promotion of Town Renovation Utilizing the Former Yard Site was organized. Many organizations joined the Council to discuss renovation plans for the yard site, and in April of 1988, the Council negotiated with the city and in August of the same year, “the vacant land of the former yard site was made a temporary athletic ground for citizens’ use.”[121] Also with government support and funding, a multitude of community facilities have been built and administered in Asaka, for example the Asaka Buraku Liberation Center[122] and the Asaka Community Dispensary.[123]

In the late 1980s, Asaka buraku leadership changed its demands on government, focusing on (1) education, (2) nursery schools, and (3) rent supplements. These demands were heard and met. The government programs of awarding high school and college scholarships to dowa residents and rent supplements were extended five and seven years, respectively. Now, almost all children attend a public nursery school. In general, Asaka Local of the BLL learned that what it does not demand from the government it will never get, but, if it is reasonable and makes strong claims, it can eventually receive what it demands.[124]

The most pressing problems, in the view of Asaka leaders today, are the dilapidated conditions of government housing and the growing inability of Asaka residents to pay their rent as it rises from about 10,000 yen (under $100) per month to market levels when government subsidies are ended. In addition, prejudice against burakumin remains in people’s hearts, minds and deeds. Asaka leaders support the enactment of a law prohibiting discrimination against burakumin. Also, the Asaka branch of the BLL is working to ensure the continuation, in some form, of improvements and assistance from the government.[125]

B. Indirect Discrimination: Disparate Socioeconomic Conditions

Despite the many government funded improvements over the years, the results of past and present discrimination are still visible in all aspects of Asaka residents’ lives. More than solely a problem of direct discrimination, buraku mondai today entails several less visible problems that are reflected in data on the socioeconomic and other conditions of burakumin.

1. Population Statistics

In 1990, Asaka was home to 1619 individuals in 634 households. Today, over half of the households include a native Asaka family member; most of the remaining families relocated to Asaka in the 1960s. Seventeen percent of households are composed of a single elderly person, “which is over five times higher than the average for [the] entire Osaka Prefecture population.”[126] The small quarters of government housing may be pointed to as the cause of this circumstance, since a large percentage of elderly in Japan live with one of their children’s families. “Single parent families comprise 11%, which is 1.6 times higher than the Osaka average.”[127]

2. Health

Over 30% of Asaka residents are either “under treatment or are hospitalized.”[128] To make matters worse, almost 16% of Asaka residents are without any health or medical insurance, whereas virtually all majority Japanese have such coverage.[129] “Although the biggest reason given for no insurance is that many are on the medical relief roll, a significant number among the no-insurance group was unable to take advantage of medical service in the time

of need.”[130] In addition, 8.4% of Asaka residents (triple the prefectural average) are recognized by the government as having disabilities related to vision, hearing, balance, “lower extremity impediments, [and] . . . internal disabilities.”[131] Although a great number of these disabled person households have moved into, rather than were born in, Asaka buraku because of its unusual amount of government supported programs and facilities for the handicapped available there, it seems that there must have been a strong need for these programs and facilities before these new residents moved in, or they would never have been established or built.[132]

3. Income

The average income of dowa residents is 70% of the national average. This is due to varying combinations of inferior jobs consistent with lower qualifications of many burakumin, an apparent lack of ambition to enter higher-paying, larger company positions, and direct discrimination against them.[133] Compared with the 1988 prefecture average, Asaka families are on average receiving approximately 80% of income of the average family[134] and disproportionately lack the benefits afforded by larger employers.

Approximately 25% of Asaka residents are on the government relief roll, a ratio eight times higher than that of Osaka city. “The head of the family’s illness is the biggest cause of people being on relief, followed by old age, disabilities and single-parent famil[ies].”[135]

4. Education

According to a survey conducted in 1990 of Asaka buraku, “nearly one tenth of people over 15 years of age quit school before they finished the 6th grade.” This is an alarming twenty-seven times higher than the city average.[136] Although conditions are still inferior, this drop-out rate is lower than in the past, due to government projects for education in the 1960s and an emphasis on “problems of juvenile delinquency and inadequate academic performance of Asaka students in the 1970s.”[137] As of 1993 in Asaka, “the high school advancement ratio in the past five years went as high as 92.4%,

almost equal to the average ratio of the Abiko Junior High, where Asaka children and non-burakumin kids study together.”[138] Opportunities for employment from high school are expanding with the help of public employment agencies and school guidance.[139]

Buraku students have not advanced as far in higher education. The national entrance rate into universities has dropped to about 30%. Asaka buraku’s rate of entrance into higher education, including junior college, is less than 70% of the city average,[140] which is only around 60% of the all-inclusive national average.[141]

The education situation of [the] people of Asaka is almost 20 years behind the national average. As a result of such poor education, 16.1% of people in Asaka face inconvenience in reading, 23.5% say they have the same problem in writing. This works to their disadvantage not only in job situations but in almost all stages of their social life; a vicious circle continuing [from] one generation to the next.[142]

Many buraku students do not enter higher education because they feel a sense of fatalism that even if they work hard and succeed academically, the existence of employment and workplace discrimination will never allow them the opportunity to succeed in the majority population. Other factors include the high cost of college and inadequate qualifications.

Scholarships available to Asaka residents are of two types: (1) dowa school scholarships and (2) ikueikai scholarships. Requirements for the former are residence in the dowa area, approval of dowa measures in general, and participation of the children and parents in three meetings per year to learn about dowa measures. The latter is based on merit and economic need, in the form of a loan that can be forgiven if all requirements are met.[143]

5. Employment

Burakumin still face outright discrimination in education, in employment, and in marriage. According to a survey of residents in Asaka buraku, thirty percent of burakumin have experienced discrimination, mostly verbally but thirty percent demonstrated through “attitudes, actions or gestures.” Some were investigated by detective agencies for matters related to employment or marriage, or their homes marked by discriminatory graffiti.[144]

Although general rates of employment in Asaka are not grossly disproportionate to Osaka’s averages, the type of work differs tremendously.[145] Approximately one-third of employed Asaka residents work as government employees, in the capacities of school janitor, cafeteria staff, water supply worker and railroad hand.[147] “Another third work in smaller companies with less than thirty workers, where the employment situation is unstable.”[148] There are also those who are self-employed, engaged mostly in the business of buying used material for re-cycling or in small-scale construction businesses, followed by the dining, retail and service industries.[149] According to Kimura Eichi, Head of the Administrative Office of the Asaka Local of the BLL, although discrimination used to be the most influential barrier keeping Asaka residents from better jobs, today the barrier is a combination of poor educational achievement and a lack of motivation partly caused by such factors as observed past discrimination in employment.[150]

Viewed on the national level, “in the field of jobs, the characteristics of [b]uraku workers can be described as follows: (1) the percentage of full-time employment is low; (2) most are employed by small- and medium-size companies; (3) few are in management; most are ‘blue collar’ workers.”[151]

Under Japan’s dual economic structure it is difficult for the burakumin, who are employed primarily by small enterprises, to improve their economic circumstances. Large-scale corporations pay higher wages, have good working conditions, give higher semi-annual bonuses and better retirement pensions . . . burakumin are not employed by large corporations that provide life-time employment but are hired as temporary or contract workers and have no job security . . . . Many are working as day-laborers, peddlers, street-cleaners and junkmen.[152]

Outright discrimination accounts for the scarcity of burakumin hired by large corporations in some cases, but inferior qualifications and the unwillingness of many burakumin to enter the harsh world of discrimination also plays a role.

Some progress has been made in eliminating discrimination from employment in Japan. By a regulation governing employment searches conducted through high schools, it is unacceptable for an employer to inquire

about such things as an applicant’s family and specific place of residence. A standard form issued by the Ministry of Labor is supposed to be used when employers are taking applications through high schools. “Students who will graduate from high school in 1997 are to use a uniform application form for employment” that will not require them to state their permanent domicile, family origin, or personal data about their family members.[153] Nevertheless, optional questions inquiring about these “taboo” topics on job application forms are often added by employers to application forms, and, if schools complain, in many cases the employers do not return to the school the next year to interview job applicants.[154] In addition, students applying for jobs from college or other schools, or who seek jobs independently, have no formal protections against discrimination available to them. Nonetheless, there have been ways in which the Department of Labor has tried to abolish discrimination in employment. Actions have included “providing enlightenment” to employers, sending administrative directives to companies to establish a position for buraku mondai consultant, and job training.[155] No penal regulations prohibiting discrimination in employment exist.[156]

6. Marriage

Discrimination in marriage persists against burakumin, but it also does against other minorities and poor people who wish to marry a person of higher social or economic status. Many Japanese believe they are not prejudiced against burakumin, yet they are still not comfortable with the idea of either themselves or their children marrying a burakumin. Some mainstream Japanese young adults respond by arguing that burakumin are too involved in their own struggle and would not be a good partner, and that such an association brings shame to the family and a lowering of one’s position in society.[157] Personal prejudice against burakumin per se is hardly ever offered as a reason for the practice of discrimination, although such prejudice often seems to underlie the transparent rationales that are expressed.

Although statistics regarding marriage discrimination exist, they can be interpreted in various ways; also, the method of collection and the form of display can alter their appearance. For example, the BLL often views cumulative statistics of buraku marriages and emphasizes the low percentage of mixed marriages. The Zenkairen, on the other hand, considers the change in statistics among surrounding generations to show the increase in mixed

marriages.[158] Among the sea of statistics supporting the Zenkairen’s contention are:

1) Sixty-five percent of Asaka couples stated that at least one of them is non-burakumin, as opposed to decades ago when burakumin simply did not marry outside of their class. (“Thirty percent of these couples, however, experienced opposition to their marriage by their close relatives, and 10% of them have at least one of their relatives rejecting any contact with them just because he or she married a burakumin or because they live in [a] buraku.”)[159]

2) Eighty to ninety percent of parents say they either did not care if their child married a burakumin, or they did care but could do nothing about it; only ten percent were found to actually oppose this idea.[160]

At least one Japanese court has been sympathetic to claims of marriage discrimination against burakumin. In May of 1996, the Osaka district court awarded a buraku woman 4.1 million yen (under $40,000) on her 26 million yen claim for compensation for her and her child from a man who allegedly “canceled their common-law relation under the influence of his mother who had prejudice toward [b]uraku people, in spite of the fact that a child was born to them.”[161]

III. THE BURAKU LIBERATION MOVEMENT’S INTERNAL DEBATE

So far we have examined the origins and history of buraku mondai, the liberation movement and government policies, the methods of perpetuating discrimination through background investigations, and the successes and failures of government legislation. The remaining Sections will address which actions of the government and liberation movement would best facilitate the full realization of buraku liberation and the elimination of discrimination. This will be accomplished by weighing the manifold opinions of the liberation movement’s two most vocal organizations in Part III, while commenting on current critical issues of buraku mondai in Part IV. Finally in Part V, some ideas about Japan’s responsibility to seek solutions to buraku mondai, along with policies that might be pursued to achieve this goal are presented.

Until 1975, there was almost no mention of buraku mondai or burakumin in mass communications media, including during the centennial of the Meiji Emancipation Edict in 1971. Early in 1975, one of Japan’s leading national newspapers, the Asahi Shinbun, ran thirty-four articles about buraku mondai. The articles were concerned with the debate between the BLL and

the JCP on the integration policy of the government at that time. The Tokyo metropolitan governor’s election was around the corner, and this topic was brought to the forefront.[162] Since 1975, public debate over buraku mondai has continued, though it is still far from open, widespread, or abundant. Below is an analysis of the major points of contention in the buraku mondai debate as argued by two key players.

A. Sketch of Organizations

There are currently two political organizations that engage in an ongoing debate about buraku mondai in Japan: the Buraku Kaiho Domei, or Buraku Liberation League (BLL), and the Zenkoku Buraku Kaiho Undo Renai Kai, or All Japan Federation of Buraku Liberation (Zenkairen).[163] They share a common ancestor, the Suiheisha, but in the 1970s became two separate entities. The BLL continued as the direct descendant of the Suiheisha, while the Zenkairen was formed by dissatisfied and excluded members.

It must be stated that even within buraku liberation organizations, there is much diversity in thought and practice between leaders, offices and individuals. Therefore, concentration will be placed on the central leanings of these two organizations themselves, but with the caveat that this focus oversimplifies a wider range of views, not only within the organizations, but also as between them and other organizations. Nonetheless, this method is well suited to expose key contentions.

1. Buraku Kaiho Domei [Buraku Liberation League (BLL)]

The Buraku Liberation League (BLL) is a non-profit organization composed of approximately 190,000 dues-paying members. According to the BLL, the number of supporters is four times this number, because usually only the head of each family pays dues.[164] According to the BLL, its mem-

bers are from every socioeconomic class and have varying political allegiances. It is commonly recognized, however, that the percentage of burakumin in the BLL is high, and JCP supporters are almost non-existent.[165]

The BLL has over 2000 branches in local buraku as well as national and prefectural offices. In Osaka, there are forty-eight dowa areas and forty-seven local branches of the BLL, ten branches of the Zenkairen, and about six Zenjido branches. The Buraku Liberation Research Institute, the BLL’s affiliated research entity, became the Buraku Liberation and Human Rights Research Institute on July 1, 1998.[166] Unlike the Institute of Buraku Problem (affiliated with the Zenkairen), however, it is not independent but an organ of the BLL.

The central body of the BLL and its branches exist on income from membership fees, publications and sales of books, and revenue from meetings. Also, local BLL branches receive government assistance funds, in the form of municipality subsidies and conduct private sector fundraising. In many instances, government subsidies are given directly to the BLL and used for (1) BLL cooperation to implement improvement works, and (2) BLL funds for travel, tutorial materials, and other incidental costs.[167] The BLL, at least at the local level, seems to function as a quasi-governmental body, implementing and administering government projects and funds.

2. Zenkoku Buraku Kaiho Undo Renai Kai [All Japan Buraku Liberation Movement Federation (Zenkairen)].

The Zenkairen (previously the Buraku Kaiho Domei Seijoka Zenkoku Renkaku Kaigi) was organized by the Communist Party after the passing of the Special Measures Law in 1969, as a rival organization to the BLL. Membership was composed of prior BLL supporters who had been purged or had withdrawn from the BLL mainly in 1969. It has friendship ties to the Japanese Communist Party (JCP)[168] and the Institute of Buraku Problem.[169]

The Zenkairen has two main offices, in Tokyo and Osaka, as well as prefectural and local branches. There are approximately 80,000 members of the Zenkairen, enrolled individually, and most of whom are not living within a buraku. The membership is largely composed of intelligentsia, JCP members, and others who, for the most part, are not burakumin. There are teachers of all levels, and high school teachers with buraku backgrounds are common leaders of local Zenkairen offices.[170] The Zenkairen is the strongest in

Okayama and Wakayama, with fifty percent support from residents of government recognized buraku; the BLL makes up the other fifty percent.

Sources of funding for the Zenkairen are similar to those for the BLL, including the following: (1) hojokin (government assistance funds), although this is not allocated based on a national policy and thus the amount received differs according to prefecture, method of request and other considerations, (2) income derived from guidance of small buraku companies with regard to accounting and other services, and (3) in Osaka, the prefectural dowa policy council gives sokushin, or promotion money, for construction and also the running of meetings, production of educational materials for public use and similar activities.[171]

Articles 19 and 21 of the Kenpo guarantee individual freedom of thought and assembly, respectively, so mass movements cannot force their members to support one particular political party. The Zenkairen, however, supports the JCP, and holds meetings in which it asks members to indicate their intended vote. The Zenkairen also has some conservative members, although it is a more homogeneous group than the BLL. The members of the Zenkairen are historically those who were excluded from the BLL exactly because of their Communist leanings and support.[172] In discussing the relationship between the JCP and the Institute of Buraku Problem, Okuyama,[173] the latter’s Executive Director, stresses that the JCP is a political party, with many concerns and an aim to achieve political power, while the Institute is an independent research group concentrating solely on buraku mondai.[174]

B. Significant Conflicting Views

The Zenkairen has much to say about the BLL, and has been called the BLL’s opposition group. It is critical of the “excessive [b]uraku orientation” of the BLL, while the BLL responds that “the initiative and critical perspective of the discriminated-against peoples play vital roles in democratizing

the society.”[175] The Zenkairen and government call for attitudinal changes on the part of burakumin, in other words, less dependency on government and a conquering of their “backwardness”;[176] the BLL criticizes the government and Zenkairen for their assimilationist tones.

Each in its own way, both the BLL and Zenkairen are extraordinarily convincing in their presentations of the origins, problems and current realities of buraku mondai, and their corresponding ideas concerning appropriate policies. When viewed in the context of the views of the majority population, mass media and especially in relation to one another, however, a helpful perspective can be gained of their points of agreement and disagreement and the strengths and weaknesses of their actions and visions for the future.[177] In any case, there are fundamental differences between the BLL and Zenkairen’s ideologies. To understand these distinctions, it is helpful to analyze the main points of contention.

1. On the Origins of Discrimination

Is buraku discrimination a caste or class-based problem?[178] The Zenkairen considers buraku discrimination to be class discrimination, and espouses opinions consistent with this theory. Yet, when one of two equally qualified applicants for a job loses out on grounds of his or her buraku identity, this presents a problem of caste versus class discrimination. Therefore, buraku mondai cannot be analyzed simply in terms of the Marxist theory of economic determination, that is, of a class struggle between the capitalist and the workers. “Even though by any objective measure of social stratification a burakumin may be in the upper middle class, the majority group members emotionally retain a social distance.”[179]

On the other hand, the BLL’s categorization of buraku discrimination as a type of caste discrimination is also simplistic. While this might have been the case in the Tokugawa Era, today people not of Tokugawa outcast ancestry are also discriminated against as burakumin, based on their place of residence or occupation. Beyond the fallacies indicated above, there are practical inadequacies to classifying buraku discrimination simply as either a form of class or caste discrimination.

Class reductionism prevents non-[b]uraku poor from perceiving correctly the pain and suffering of the discriminated-against. Burakumin’s unique aspirations and demands are lost from their sight. Caste reductionism may unnecessarily generate feelings of antagonism between [b]urakumin and non-[b]urakumin thereby curtailing the possibility of their joint engagement for liberation.[180]

As explained in the Introduction, the origins of buraku discrimination are neither clear-cut nor uniform. Nor are the justifications or explanations for discrimination against burakumin today consistent with the justifications for it in years past. Indeed, the base definitions of burakumin and buraku discrimination are controversial.

2. Evaluation of Progress

Both the BLL and Zenkairen agree that progress has been made in the lives of burakumin. They also agree, on the other hand, that discrimination still exists. The difference is simply that they focus on opposite ends of the reality spectrum, the Zenkairen on the improvements and the BLL on the remaining discrimination. Okuyama estimates that about four-fifths of buraku mondai has been resolved. The BLL would estimate a much lower ratio. Possibly one of the factors accounting for the discrepancy in perspectives is the different definition of discrimination recognized by the BLL and Zenkairen. Other reasons are most likely directly related to differing ideological and political aims of the BLL and Zenkairen.[181]

3. On the Definition of Discrimination

One reason for the contrary evaluations of the progress of buraku mondai by the BLL and Zenkairen is their conflicting definitions of discrimination. The BLL defines discrimination quite broadly, while the Zenkairen defines it narrowly. The items included in the BLL’s list are employment and marriage discrimination, discriminatory remarks or actions, and discriminatory graffiti. The Zenkairen argues, however, that marriage is supposed to be agreeable to both parties, and thus any reason for deciding not to marry is definitionally legitimate. The Zenkairen thus believes that refusals to marry based on one of the couple’s buraku identity should not be punishable by an anti-discrimination law. This argument is based on Article 24 of the Kenpo, which reads: “marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes . . . .” Yet, it continues: “With regard to . . . matters pertaining to marriage and the family, laws shall be enacted from the standpoint of individual dignity and the essential equality of the sexes.”[182] Perhaps this lan-

guage provides some support for the BLL position. The Zenkairen also asserts that discrimination in employment hiring should not be prohibited because of people’s right to do business. The BLL strongly disagrees.

The Zenkairen does not include discriminatory graffiti or remarks as acts of discrimination that should be legally punished but rather as expressions of prejudice that are unfortunate, but within an individual’s personal prerogative. Okuyama asserts that there are legal means already in place to deal with extreme cases, which are not only sufficient but more appropriate than a general law against discrimination. For example, if discriminatory graffiti or remarks are targeted at an individual, they could be infringing on that person’s right to privacy, or be prosecuted as slander.[183] In most cases though, the Zenkairen believes that when discriminatory graffiti is found, it should simply be erased without further commotion. The BLL, by contrast, would insist that discriminatory graffiti must be reported, investigated and then revealed openly as an opportunity to help teach about buraku mondai.[184]

While the acts listed by the BLL as discriminatory may be so in nature, to prohibit all acts exhibiting prejudice would go too far, infringing on people’s constitutional rights such as privacy and free speech. Suggestions to alleviate discrimination without infringing on constitutional rights are offered in later Sections.

4. Kyudan (“Denunciation Tactics”)

The Joint Committee for International Problems, composed of three organizations including the Zenkairen and the Institute of Buraku Problem, issued a Statement for Publication in August of 1990 that included the following accusation that the BLL “seriously violates human rights.”[185] These allegations, in large part, refer to the use of kyudan, or denunciation tactics, by the BLL.

Denunciation, or kyuudan, is a practice invented by the Suiheisha after World War I to respond to acts of discrimination by soliciting from the discriminator (or alleged offender) apologies, self-criticism, promises to participate in enlightenment education and institutional reform. In the early years of the Suiheisha, spontaneity and anger were chief features of denunciations.

Individuals labeled by the Suiheisha as discriminators were targeted “with the goal of obtaining a public apology and a promise not to use discriminatory language in the future.” To this limited extent denunciations were successful, although the costs were high. There was not a lot of preparation involved in these early kyudan and they often led to violent clashes between burakumin and majority members of Japanese society. “The end result was often the suppression of overt discrimination, especially the use of derogatory language, but also increased hostility toward burakumin among the majority population and a view of the Suiheisha as violent and frightening.” It must be remembered, however, that “the change of a stereotype from ‘docile’ and ‘obedient’ to ‘fierce’ is observed for other minority groups, too, as they become active politically.” The BLL says:

In other words, this change is triggered by the prejudice in the mind of discriminators who label unfairly the activism of the minority group as “fierce.” Therefore, it was “activism” rather than a specific tactic like “kyudan”that generated the fear.[186]

On the other hand, perhaps some people do have specific objections to kyudan and not activism generally.

Recognizing the shortcomings of this tactic, a barrier to joining forces with other elements of Japanese society, in the late 1920s the Suiheisha reinvented its own practice of denunciation. It created a special category for discriminators of working or lower classes, whom the Suiheisha viewed as fellow victims of oppression. These discriminators were educated rather than intimidated. On the other hand, those with positions of power in institutions were subject to carefully planned non-violent denunciation sessions.[187] “The goal was to link the elimination of discrimination to the general class-based complaints of labor and tenant farmers.”[188]

This refinement in tactics met with great success with respect to BLL objectives: “individuals who practiced discrimination were often transferred and institutional policy frequently changed.”[189] For example, there was integration of formerly segregated classrooms and firing of discriminatory judges.[190] Such successes demonstrated that denunciations could be effective vehicles for swift reform of discriminatory practices and institutions.

The purposes of denunciation as recited by Tomonaga are the following:

• jichi kyoiku, or on the spot education of especially young burakumin to awaken their buraku identity;

• to make discriminators conscious of the invalidity of their discrimination;

• to combat the indirect influence of prejudicial surroundings and people as a form of education about buraku mondai;

• to show the discriminator the actual conditions of buraku, and “to make clear the substantial conditions of discrimination.”[191]

The BLL justifies the use of denunciation as a mechanism of last resort to publicly expose acts of discrimination, seek deliberation on the part of the discriminators, and look to secure the eradication of institutional support and encouragement of discrimination. The Japanese government fails to take action and no law prohibiting discrimination against burakumin exists. The BLL asserts that denunciation properly responds to discrimination within the legal limits of the Japanese Constitution and international covenants.[192] The reality of continued discrimination and lack of governmental response, however, does not necessitate denunciation by the BLL as the exclusive option. Further, a court case, described below, explains that legal limits apply to denunciations.

The Civil Liberties Bureau of the Ministry of Justice has, since 1986, not only publicly criticized denunciations conducted by the civil groups such as the BLL, but also has taken obstructive actions against them. The Bureau bases its claims on the opinion of the Council on the Area Improvement Measures issued in December 1987 that targets of discrimination are not required to consent to attending denunciations. In an August 1985 report of a subcommittee of the Area Improvement Council “whose object was to formulate a policy framework for further Government measures to deal with buraku discrimination problems about kyudan” it is written that:

because kyudan is a kind of self-rescuing act and private trial engaged in by the discriminated-against, those who are exposed to kyudan may not be really obliged to face kyudan . . . . [F]or a right to be established as legal right demanding certain obligations on others, it has to be founded in legal provisions or court rulings. There is no such court law or previous court ruling.[193]

The BLL argues that this opinion cannot be considered legitimate as the Council excluded the representatives of the buraku communities from its membership. Although this may be true depending on the method of selecting Council members, the conclusion of the Council seems to be in ac-

cordance with the Constitution and laws of Japan. The BLL goes further and alleges that the interference by the Civil Liberties Bureau of the Ministry of Justice in denunciation is clearly an abuse of state power that must be stopped immediately. The governmental authorities must not obstruct denunciation but enact laws aiming to eliminate discrimination and to create an effective remedial mechanism. The BLL insists that if positive steps are taken towards these goals and prove successful, then denunciation policy will naturally change.[194] One can infer from this statement that the BLL envisions its role as combating discriminators as eternal, and not the only alternative to future government solutions.

On the other hand, the legitimacy of denunciation in the abstract, and to a limited extent, is supported by the Osaka High Court in relation to the infamous Yoka High School Discrimination Case. On March 29, 1988 it decided: “Kyudan is not a right that is recognized in the substantial law, but may be accepted as a self-rescuing act by [asserting] the principle in article 14 of the Japanese Constitution.”[195]

Legal remedies against discrimination are definitely limited. Their scope is narrow and frequently there is nothing that can be done. In light of these circumstances, it’s justifiable for society to accept the process called denunciation against discrimination as long as the methods and tactics don’t exceed reasonable limits.[196]

Furthermore, the question whether reasonable bounds were exceeded cannot be determined uniformly or abstractly. It should be determined by reference to all the circumstances, the content and degree of the discrimination targeted by the denunciation in question, the events leading up to the discrimination, the process of negotiations between the discriminator and the denouncers, the attitude of the discriminators, and the like.[197]

It seems as if the court is treating denunciation in a manner similar to an act of self-defense, the legitimacy of which can only be determined by the degree of threat, versus a simple case decided by a fixed set of rules. Thus, courts may uphold the legitimacy and rightfulness of denunciations in some cases, but not in all. The outcome should be dependent on the severity of the denunciation versus the offensiveness of the discrimination. The court in 1988 thus failed to provide much guidance concerning the “permissible purposes [or actual bounds] of denunciation.”[198]

These two opinions, by the Civil Liberties Bureau of the Ministry of Justice since 1986 and the Osaka High Court in 1988, while seemingly disparate, are not necessarily inconsistent. Taking both opinions into account, it

seems that the Japanese judicial branch assesses denunciations to be legal in cases where the severity of the denunciation matches the severity of the alleged crime, if the alleged discriminator freely and willingly chooses to participate in the denunciation.

a. Problem I: Definition of Kyudan by the BLL

In March of 1996 the BLL launched a denunciation against an assistant professor of Kinki University, a private university in Osaka Prefecture, because of a remark he made in an August 1995 lecture to local government employees of Nara Prefecture during their training session. He said:

One of my students who is working for a local government office in charge of public works told me about the difficulty of his duties. According to him, there are three kinds of masters who bring trouble to the office: politicians, Yakuza (gangsters) and people from dowa areas. He laments that he is no longer able to have a conversation with these visitors when shouted at by them without being given a chance to explain.[199]

In response to this comment, the assistant professor was labeled a discriminator by the BLL and made to self-criticize.

The assistant professor was also criticized in a denunciation session for explaining that he “simply associated [b]uraku people with members of fake organizations on the dowa only hunting for concessions on dowa projects.”[200] Okuyama of the Institute of Buraku Problem and others have mentioned the problem of “fake” dowa organizations causing a great deal of trouble in society and to the liberation movement. Thus, the existence of non-buraku (or at least non-BLL organizations pretending to be buraku or BLL organizations) seems to be a reality. Surely Okuyama is not a “discriminator,” being executive director of the Institute of Buraku Problem and from a buraku district. If the statement were false, perhaps it could be called discriminatory, and some sort of educational action taken. Even in that case, to put the action on a level with acts of discrimination that might be punishable by law, if there were laws against discrimination, would be to go too far. The BLL needs to weigh the truth of seemingly discriminatory statements to deduce their real nature, and possibly even take what is said as an indicator of what needs to be improved in their own sphere of influence, instead of focusing solely on what ideas the alleged discriminator must eliminate or change.

In a related incident, on August 17 the Nara Prefectural Federation BLL received a postcard that it deemed “extremely discriminatory.” It reads, in part:

I heard that you, the BLL, denounced an assistant professor of Kinki University . . . . It is true that there are three kinds of terrible masters: politicians, the Yakuza, and people from [d]owa areas. Although a right to denounce other people is not authorized, you unilaterally denounce others with self-righteous justice as if holding a kangaroo court. All of us are afraid of you.[201]

Certainly this postcard can be termed critical and derogatory, and it is indicative of the intense ill feelings held by the writer toward the BLL’s denunciation tactics. It should not, however, be legally actionable, nor must it necessarily be labeled as “discriminatory” and attacked as such. The letter articulates sentiments that are in fact not uncommon among those familiar with the BLL and its denunciations, not because of prejudice against burakumin necessarily, but because of serious philosophical and legal objections to the BLL practice of denunciation. The writer of the postcard goes on to say that the BLL operates only for material gain and “will not only destroy democracy in Japan but also hopeful prospects for the future.” Simply labeling this postcard as discriminatory without responding seriously to the contents of the letter cuts off debate and understanding.

One improper effect of denunciation, either intended or unintended, is to prevent open discussion on the issue of buraku mondai in Japan. The BLL defines discrimination very broadly and does not leave room for discussion.[202] It is not beneficial to buraku liberation to be so quick to label people as discriminators. A vital step in the extinguishing of buraku discrimination is for people to learn about buraku mondai and to be given the freedom to explore their own feelings and thoughts, even if this must be done through a series of trial-and-error steps.

Although some reporters, researchers and television programs cover issues relating to buraku mondai, in general even the media and scholars seems somewhat wary of becoming a target of BLL denunciation. In the media, only the JCP publicly challenges the BLL. Academics, ranging from Japanese legal scholars to sociologists (except those associated with the BLL or the JCP), also steer clear of analyzing or critiquing matters under this topic. Foreign authors find the portions of their translated works regarding burakumin deleted by even the most well respected academic publishers in Japan.