Friday, December 16, 2022

What to remember

 I always felt my memory is not strong enough. Though i read enough, i dont remember much. During one of the morning meditations, i ruminated about the books i remember and which impacted. Here is the list and interestingly most of it, i read it between 1998 and 2002, when i was in college. 

a. Zen and the art of ..... this book hooked me for days. I read and re-read it. i was reading will durant during this time, i felt i understood a little better of Kant reading this. What i remember now is the difference between car and motorbike ride, his discussion with a monk. The one shift was the way i looked at material things. Perhaps this led my buy bullet. Though i am not a great rider

b. Freedom at midnight, Naokhali yatra. This led to read Gandhi's autobiography and more biographies, judith brown, fisher, last 200 days, etc: .  I vividly remember reading his autobiography. I was crying, couldnt even cost 60 pages. i have read almost all the biographies i think.

c. Future shock series... how wealth creation and distribution determine culture. This led me a lot more understanding of different cultures and societies. I wrote a long essay after this.

d. Brothers karamzov... i find this the best novel i have ever read. What i remember is dmitri and  ivan conversation in the monastery and many more with alexei. Guilt of intelligence without caring for consequences stayed.

e. We the people, this is the first novel i read with strong women protagonist, i probably identified with her i guess. 

f. Anna Karinina. Of all, i remember annas stoical husband. the role holder in me gets alive when i read

g. JJ: his meeting with a leper/begger and subsequent passages.

h. Peter drucker: I have loved all his books, he along with porter, kotler are pleasure reading. It has influenced the way i look at business. Post capitalist society remains favourite. 

i. God that failed: For this quote, faith is not acquired by reason, we reason it to defend it.

h. Bharatiya chit manas and kaal, this is the collection of essays and speeches by dharampal, though many would remember his beautiful tree, i think his best was this and perhaps understanding gandhi as well. This essay, brought me closer to india, i guess looked at people positively and learned to listen to stories.

i. Siddhartha, of the many, what i remember is the buddhas caution, "beware of your mind"

j. Leela, this was better than zen and the art, "Using morality as power"

k. colombo to almora; This i guess was anyones favourite.

l. Tao of physics and dancing wu li masters. 

m. Mahabharata: Udhyoga parvam, for its many dimensions of dharma and conversations around that.

n. Tagore/nehru notes on nationalism.


Essentially my outlook to life remain the same i guess. All other books i read along with these and after didn't shift my space much.






Yes there will always be a castiest, sexist, racist, linguist, religious angle to a murder. And we all cry for certain type of murder, and for certain kind of people. And we also choose to hear certain type. when i read Y G mahendran post,  he may be right, there is a difference between the murder of a dalit and murder of a brahmin. There will be and should be more voice for dalits, because of sheer number of dalits who gets killed. Very rarely do we see a brahmin killed because of his or her identity.


Friday, February 19, 2016

Neither Left nor right




We are witnessing increasing outrage and drama in the streets everyday, not a day has gone without an incident that threatens to barrage our moral sensibility and delude us into thinking that some catastrophe is upon us and the indian voters are to be blamed for it. People who have voted for Modi is ridiculed and asked to repent for their mistake.


The success of this government is to make every voter, every hindu (good bad and ugly) answerable for the government performance. One doesn't have to hold a party card to be a BJP man.
No other government probably ever mired with controversies after controversies since it assumed office. The street warriors fighting the modi govt have been the left intellectuals. Both the real and exaggerated crimes and mistakes of the present government is used by the left to feel vindicated and call the “31” percent for introspection. One can actually feel a smirk in their face. Infact one gets a feeling that the left actually want the present government to be a facist one, otherwise it will be a disappointment. It was the congress which lost election by numbers, however it was the left intelligentsia which took the victory  personally  and ever since it is trying to come in term with this.


The war is actually between the right and the left and the people are forced to take sides.


The fight is between two different ideas both have propensity to kill, because both believe in absoluteness of their ideas.


While the right imposes tradition, religion, faith, patriotism on others through violence, the left imposes irreverence, irreligiosity, science, poverty through violence.
Tragic similarities, when the left celebrated Afsal Guru or (sought justice for his sentence), hindu maha sabha celebrated Godse’s birthday. if the fight is against Capital Punishment why not condemn the death penalty of Godse. Both were hanged by the government for their anti national activities, if one murdered “the father” the symbol of modern india, the other waged war against the government. While the left poured their heart against afsal’s hanging (some said they are against death penalty) however they accused of the right of glorifying Godse, didn’t want to learn patriotism from stooges of British and the killers of gandhi. May be “the party” did not agree to some slogans raised during the “cultural event” but certainly they were sympathisers, sharing the anguish of afsal guru and the kashmiri cause. Similarly the RSS, sympathise with Godse, and share the anguish and sentiments of hindu cause, if not have played an active role.  Kanaiya, the student leader spoke eloquently on the danger of the right to expression, he remembered Bhagat Singh, Amdetkar, he rejected hindutva, exposed the patriotism of Savarkar. But he didnt mention the role of the left in freedom struggle, their support to the british during quit india movement, he didnt mention Gandhi, except perhaps to expose RSS’s betrayal.


The difference is the left have over a period of time learnt to intellectualise, and build an army of intellectuals to defend and obfuscate in the name of poor. But for them the poor is just an identity, that is the only identity they nurture, they don't go beyond this identity. The tradition, the belief and the values of the poor have no  consequence. It doesn't deserve any appreciation, it will be studied and theorised but never owned or identified with. It is brahminical, a classical one.

Left are the new brahmins in disguise, they derive power from intellectual and moral high ground. Debate, which they so fondly desire is just a tactic,, but that is not a prefered option when in power. We dont see a vibrant campus in kerala or kolkatta. And i am not aware of debating culture in the communist countries. It is an old brahminical formula that defeated buddhism, Initially they had contempt for belief and  faith: bakthi was assigned to the poor and the socially backward.


The source of power was their intelligence, moral high handedness. One can see that they dismissed Kalam, and anna hazare, gandhi. left ridiculed all of them for their simplicity and they questioned their intelligence and accused them of providing simple solutions. They accused them of preventing revolution.Their hate for gandhi is deeper than the right. The dismissed the man, his life and his ideas. They assumed position where they can pass judgements on every single person  and his work based on a framework, just like the priest who used shastras. That is an astonishing similarities, you can't make them accountable because they didn't write a single piece in the anthology of left writing. The god they worship, and gospel they preach are not theirs. Similarly in the  world of hindu philosophy, brahmins were not the principal contributor of the philosophy, they were at the best protector,propagandist, they defend it. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that the brahmins dominate the communist party.


left thinks that the BJP came to power by sloganeering and raising hindu passion, if this was such a easy thing then communist should have been in power. for a country with billion poor people it should have been easy to get them believe in the common enemy and rally them, but it was not so. For the sangh they had to create the Hindu identity which never existed some 200 years ago. To make a group of people with multiple divisions to bring them in one identity is a huge task. If RSS has succeeded partially in this is because of sheer hard work. It doesn't matter if they are right or wrong good or bad, hard work at the end of the day pays.


Murderers of Gandhi:
You also hear both the left and right talk a lot about Gandhi, what thousand pages of Gandhi couldn't do , a picture of Godse did. Suddenly Gandhi has become a symbol of patriotism and even equated with “India”.  


In fact both the right and the left rejected much of what he had to offer. This is the height of hypocrisy that the left who supported British, and rejected Gandhi’s call for Quit India, questions RSS.


RSS want to appropriate Gandhi because they dont want to loose a hindu count. It is as simple as that. That has been their strategy, any Hindu is ok, once i had a conversation with a pracharak, we were discussing about people who were attending shakas, one guy was a well known gonda, i asked him why should you allow such person. His response was “It is ok, we can change him, importantly it is better to have a “Hindu” gonda than to loose him to someone else. For the RSS there can’t be any other identity, or even  values. They are for a Hindu Rastra, where only Hindus can be criminal,thugs. They find new and old gods and icons from this interest. Ambedkar, is a friend of Hindu because he didn't add anyone to the enemy camp. Their idea of hindu is not someone who believes in Hinduism or its value, their idea of hindu is someone who identify himself as a hindu or anyone who is not a christian or muslim.


The right has appropriated the voice of the Hindu, it is they who speak about tradition, values, of millions of the people. The speak on scriptures, and interpret them. Such is a situation, a political Hindu to whom it is mere an identity, has appropriated the space. It is a disgusting and dangerous situation where the Hindus have to look up to sangh for reform and protection.


Both are interested only in Ideology, their paradise  not in people. They will not hesitate to sacrifice people in the altar of higher goals. You need to fit into their idea of Good and bad


What we need today is someone without any extreme position, someone who can understand  our faith, fear, tradition, aspiration. and who can make us feel free


We don't need the right which exploits our faith, and we don't need the left who mocks at our faith.

Monday, March 23, 2015

VHP declares BEEF as integral part of Hindu Life





In the three day closed conference held by the sangh parivar to decide on hindu practices for the 21st century India, VHP declared eating cow as integral part of Hindu society. In a statement by Parveen, he said Hindus were eating cow till 11th century AD, it was during the time of muslim rule that hindus were denied beef.Muslims who came from the land where there were no cows, realized the strength of hindus coming from eating cows, conspired with the Buddhists to stop hindus from eating it. The gullible hindus fell for it.  Praveen said, VHP would launch nation wide Gau wapsi programme to encourage Hindus to return to their mother food.
Various Leaders reaction:

Arjunan of Hindu Cow katchi, welcomed the decision, and said hindus have always killed and ate things they loved most after offering it to their god, the cow is the most revered animals for the hindus, and it is natural for them to offer it as a sacrifice and eat it. Ram gopal another leader from the sangh said that this will increase our chances of winning cricket matches against Pakistan and USA. And he thanks Gow shakthi for it.

The sankar mutt, quoted from vedas and Upanishad about the cow significance in Hindu cuisine, and released a mantra which should be uttered while eating it to their devotees.

Kancha Illaya: It is a conspiracy to saffronise dalitism. Just like upper caste hindus took away Ayurveda, karnatic music, bhrathanatyam, they want to take away beef from the dalits. This means, dalits will be denied eating it.

Poolulagin Nanbargal: This shows the utter disregard for the animal rights. The aggressive hindutva forces want to kill cows, because they want to promote chemical farming. There is a clear corporate lobby which is promoting it. We will organize one day VEGAN FOOD festival this month.

Veeramani: This is another conspiracy of the Aryan north Indians to subjugate Dravidians. They are doing it so that Dravidians die of high cholesterol. We all know that Tamils were originally vegetrarians, our original religion was Jainism which abhorred killing of animals. Following thiruvalluvar, we should not fall for this Aryan conspiracy.

VAIKO, said this hurts the tamil sentiments, by forcing tamils to eat will jeopardize the eelam cause.

The VHP spokesperson said, at the end of the conclave, we can expect more such edicts.

Sunday, June 15, 2014

Arundathi Roy's lie

When i was a school kid, there used to be a joke about a student who wrote an essay about coconut tree. In the exam he was asked to write about a Cow, but  he knew only about coconut tree so he wrote three full pages about the tree and in the last line he wrote, “we tie our beloved cow in the coconut tree”. This is certainly on a lighter note, i am not suggesting roy doesn’t know about ambedkar, it is just a feeling you get after reading the introduction, you get to know more about Gandhi than about Ambetkar.
From the article Roy has written (Doctor and the Saint), i feel she is fighting an imaginary gandhians whom she feels are betraying Ambetkar’s critical role in the history of India especially in creating modern moral intellectual conscience  of the nation. Why is nation obsessed with Gandhi when the future of india lies with Ambetkar seems to me her anguish. And for this she has brooded over writings of Gandhi (From the devils mouth) to prove his undeserved claims. She has read it selectively , as she says, it is humanly impossible to read monstrous amount of material Gandhi has written, with inconsistency, and make a sense of it. Infact one gets the feeling she has not only selectively chose the writing but also selectively read  paragraph in a letter as they are so long. This impatience or rather dishonestly is unexpected from a writer who has written volumes herself.
 She has used her screenplay skills to slowly build a plot to establish Gandhi as negative hero in the history of Dalits resurgence.  IN this process she has, one can say, has fallen prey to the age old hindu tradition of Myth making, she is creating a hero by writing too much about Gandhi than about Ambetkar.  Little do we know about Ambetkar from her  article.
In her play Gandhi come across as durathma, a liar, a Manuvadi, racist,  as conspirator against Ambetkar, and   with ambetkar lies the future of india.
This is no reason to argue that Gandhi has done or his ideas are better and improved than of Ambetkar’s, perhaps  Ambetkar was right, Gandhi was wrong, perhaps Ambetkar can provide salvation to india’ s problem.  For me the case is, for Ambetkar to be prophet of New India, should gandhi be a villain ?, for  ambetkar to be established  should gandhi be demolished. The last 60 years have proved amply to all, that gandhi is at the best remains  tomb devoid of any substance or representation for the followers and the nation. His thoughts and practice is buried and occasional debate goes on his relevance. Yes he is written most and debated but doesn’t mean it is more than a pulp culture.
Some of the conclusion and opinion roy has drawn in the are outrageous. I would like to examine those statements from same sources she has claimed from.
History has been kind to Gandhi, Ambetkar Ignored. Which historian and which history has been unkind to ambedkar, just a para above this statement ,in the article roy talks about many gandhis eco gandhi, androgynous gandhi etc. Perhaps this multi facet persona of gandhi has something for every one. Even in the long article foreword to the ambedkar’s book roy had  given more space to gandhi, than ambedkar. Is she then unkind to Ambdekar, does ambedkar has a life beyond Gandhi. Is he like an epic villain.
 The Mask of Mahatma the Liar: Roy, gives an impression as though mahatmahood is some kind of caste that he inherited, or status he got as right.  She says, it is Mahatmahood  gave him licence to be inconsistent, lecture diet, experiment with sex  etc and change his truth constantly. Perhaps one may understand it is because of these he was called mahatma. Perhaps he listened to innervoice, he was open, and inconsistent he was called mahatma.
Gandhi Represented only elite indians in SA.
Roy says As spokesman for the Indian community, Gandhi was always careful to distinguish—and distance—passenger Indians from indentured workers and quotes
Whether they are Hindus or Mahommedans, they are absolutely without any moral or religious instruction worthy of the name. They have not learned enough to educate themselves without any outside help. Placed thus, they are apt to yield to the slightest temptation to tell a lie. After some time, lying with them becomes a habit and a disease. They would lie without any reason, without any prospect of bettering themselves materially, indeed, without knowing what they are doing. They reach a stage in life when their moral faculties have completely collapsed owing to neglect.48
The above para is extracted from the open letter (phamlet) written by Gandhi to Legislative Council of SA, the letter runs into more than 15 pages, where he forcefully argues the case of Indian, including Indentured workers, on why the indians and whites can live together equally without any hate and how “40,000 indians living in the country can be of use to the colony” (page 187). As he writes he deals with the following questions in the article.
“  You can educate public opinion in such a way that the hatred will be increased day by day; and you can, if you chose so to do, educate it in such a way that the hatred would begin to subside.
I now propose to discuss the question under the following heads:
1. Are the Indians desirable as citizens in the Colony?
2. What are they?
3. Is their present treatment in accordance with the best British traditions, or with the principles of justice and morality, or with the principles of Christianity?
 4. From a purely material and selfish point of view, will an abrupt or gradual withdrawal of them from the Colony result in substantial, lasting benefit to the Colony?
He is making a case for better treatment for indians by addressing the root of hate the colonisers have. In the beginning of the letter he says, if the hatered is because of the colour then the Indians should pack and leave the country for which there is no hope. But if it is based on ignorance, etc then he wish to clarify it. Thus a long letter. He quotes different philosophers, scholars and colonisers opinion on india and the indians.  He is answering to the some common objections raised by the British regarding Indians, especially their sanitory habits and untruthfullness.  And the in the colony many believed indians to be Untruthful “ Here is the extraction these are from the same para Roy has quoted.
” Everyone I have met with in the Colony has dwelt upon the untruthfulness of the Indians. To a limited extent I
admit the charge. It will be very small satisfaction for me to show, in reply to the objection, that other classes do not fare much better in this respect, especially if and when they are placed in the position of the unfortunate Indians. And yet, I am afraid, I shall have to fall back upon argument of that sort. Much as I would wish them to be otherwise, I confess my utter inability to prove that they are more than human. They come to Natal on starvation wages (I mean here the indentured Indians). They find themselves placed in a strange position and amid uncongenial surroundings..........
Are these men, then, more to be despised than pitied? Are they to be treated as scoundrels, deserving no mercy, or are they to be treated as helpless creatures, badly in need of sympathy? Is there any class of people who would not do as they are doing under similar circumstances?. He asks.
What kind of conclusion one would arrive if one believes only the roy’s quotation.  Roy asks us read a book by Ashwin Desai to know the plight of Indian Labourers in SA. Gandhi in the same phamplet talks about it. It just show how determined is Roy to prove her point. Sad what else one can say.
He is the Saint of the Status Quo.
Status quo huh??. Gandhi challenged many status quo almost in all the spheres he worked. He constantly re interpreted the world, especially religion to conform to his world view. In the same article roy quotes “that neither ambedkar nor gandhi allow us to pin[i]”. How can a person who does not fit into any image be a representative of status quo.  His auto biography is called “Experiment” . Roy calls Gandhi Stotus Quo Saint.. aaaa
 Gandhi Believed in Varnasharama Dharma: Yes gandhi did, he had his own inte
Is Gandhi a castiest, now what do we understand by this term, did he believe in caste, did he believe in discrimination, did he believe in natural stratification of society based on birth etc.
Gandhi was not a Brahmin, he was third in hierarchy (if there is one) just above sudhra. Why would a vaishya, support varna if he himself suffers from it. Perhaps he is also affected in “infection of Imitation” as ambedkar calls and in way emphasise with the rigid caste discrimination among the dalits.
One doesn’t need a translation of the gurajati text as Roy says to know the real intention of Gandhi on Caste. Gandhi in 1920, in Young India under title “The Caste: talks and also gives reasons for this thinking.  Endorsement of Caste system as he sees is not new. He believed in natural division of people depending upon their skills.  One can also see the difference in this article Gandhi uses castes for Varna.
But can conclude he practiced caste discrimination in his life. His beliefs and understanding of Varna, Caste is different from the Sanathanis who cried for his life. As Ashish nandi quotes, in his essay assins of Gandhi, Gandhi was murdered not just because he supported muslim cause, he had ruffled feathers of Sanathatni, when he called for opening of Temples and declared untouchability is against hindu dharma. Poona pact was infact the first declaration where Hindus publically declared Untouhcability is against Hinduism. Gandhi was architect to it.
In his ashrams he always tried to built universal society, his famous browl with his wife in south Africa was because she refused to clean dalit’s toilet who was resident. There are numerous instance where many ashramites have left because it had common kitchen where the food was cooked and shared by all. Gandhi and Santhanis, book by A marx records the reaction to Gandhi’s reforms. Gandhi used hiindu symbols and icons but interpreted in his own way, His Ram Rajya is not the same as that of BJP, he is not sanatani of hindu poojaries, though he called him self one.
From 1932, ashram has supported only intercaste marriage. To understand Gandhis stand on Dalits, one should go beyond the phrases he used and see the meaning he has used the life he has lived. Roy knows that Gandhi’s Santana is not the same as that of Sankarachariya, or his rama is not that of BJPs.
Gandhi cant represent Dalits:
Who has the right to represent Dalits, or even emphathise with them is the fundamental quarrel. Did Gandhi do anything at  to the cause of Dalits, Can the upper caste Gandhi truly represent Dalits.
If one looks at Dalits as one block then yes only Dalits can. But as roy quotes “Infection of Imitation” where the line between suppresser and oppressed are thin then every one in the Hindu Graded System can to an extent talk about discrimination and oppression by the higher caste. Gandhi’s experience in SA where he was denied food, logding, and hair cut by the white, gave him experience of what it meant to be a Dalit, in fact he bore all this without hatered because he saw, the same treatment meted to the dalits in india. Gandhi knew what it meant to be social outcaste. His community outcasted him, SA gave him much relief to escape the tyranny of caste.
Gandhi when he say he understood he talks from his own experience, not from some borrowed thoughts.  Roy herself has been a victim of this line of arguments. She is vilified by the Dalits for writing a introduction to this book. She is asked the same question, by trying to write about Ambedkar, she is taking away the diety who is exclusive to Dalits. If she can find a same cause with Dalits, why not Gandhi,.
Dalits have all rights to reject Gandhi, but it doesn’t take away what gandhi did or tried to do. He suspended independence movement for a decade because he undertook Harijan seva work. He thought that to be important,. Gandhi wanted india to gain independence and lead the world under moral authority, he knew this cant be built when a large section of the society remain untouchable. His audience are not Dalits, his are Caste Hindus, he had to talk to their heart and find change there. Just like he spoke to the Christian hearts of the English men.
Gandhi the Racist:
Roy has quoted from the article Gandhi has written in 1909, A year later, the sixteenth of the 20 years he spent in South Africa, he wrote “My Second Experience in Gaol” in the Indian Opinion (16 January 1909):
I was given a bed in a cell where there were mostly Kaffir prisoners who had been lying ill. I spent the night in this cell in great misery and fear… I read the Bhagvad Gita which I had carried with me. I read the verses which had a bearing on my situation and meditating on them, managed to compose myself. The reason why I felt so uneasy was that the Kaffir and Chinese prisoners appeared to be wild, murderous and given to immoral ways… He [the Chinese] appeared to be worse. He came near the bed and looked closely at me. I kept still. Then he went to a Kaffir lying in bed. The two exchanged obscene jokes, uncovering each other’s genitals… I have resolved in my mind on an agitation to ensure that Indian prisoners are not lodged with Kaffirs or others. We cannot ignore the fact that there is no common ground between them and us. Moreover those who wish to sleep in the same room as them have ulterior motives for doing so.67
From inside jail Gandhi began to petition the White authorities for separate wards in prisons. He led battles demanding segregation on many counts: he wanted separate blankets because he worried that “a blanket that has been used by the dirtiest of Kaffirs may later fall to an Indian’s lot.”68 He wanted prison meals specially suited to Indians—rice served with ghee69—and refused to eat the “mealie pap” that the “Kaffirs” seemed to relish. He also agitated for separate lavatories for Indian prisoners.70
The actual article explains in details his experience in the jail. In the same letter he writes.
I did not have the slightest trouble from the warder during the journey. I had resolved [while in Volksrust Gaol] that, unless openly allowed by the warder, I would not take any food other than what I was allowed in gaol. Hence I had carried on with the gaol diet all these days. But they had given me no food packet for the journey. (he was moved from one goal to another)The warder [accompanying me] allowed me to buy whatever food I wanted. The station master offered me some money. He was also very much upset [to observe my condition]. I thanked him, [but] declined his offer of money. I borrowed 10 s from Mr. Kazi, who was present at the station, and spent something from it to buy food for myself and for the warder on the train.”
Gandhi was clearly not asking for rice with Ghee. About the “Separate Blankets”  for indians, Gandhi writes in letter his general observation about the Jail,
Prisons are generally kept very clean. If this were not so, there would be epidemics before long. But there is also lack of cleanliness in some respects. Blankets are constantly interchanged. A blanket that has been used by the dirtiest of Kaffirs may later fall to an Indian’s lot. Frequently, the blankets are found to be full of lice. They have a nasty smell. Under the rules, they must be exposed to sunlight for half an hour every day, if the sky is clear. But this is rarely done. The difficulty about blankets is not a trivial matter to a man of clean habits. The same thing often happens about dress. The uniform worn  by a prisoner is not always washed after he is released, but is given to another prisoner to wear in the same dirty condition. This is a disturbing state of affairs.
He wanted a separate lavatory for the Indians because he was beaten up by prisoners, the same letter has the detailed account of this.
Though one may  question why he thinks Kaffirs to be the dirtiest why not indians,  But he is certainly not refusing the blanket because it is used by the Kaffir, and he has in the same series of article admonished indians for laziness, uncleanliness etc.
This article is infected with factual errors, misrepresentation with sole aim to tarnish the image of gandhi, one may wonder why??, why would anyone sling mud on someone who is anyway boxed in the prints of nasik. Gandhi is not seeking space in the pantheons of Dalit deities, but can they find a better friend outside their caste, is there any suvarna who has worked and talked so much like gandhi.  If Abraham Lincoln can be celebrated by African Americans for his contribution for their liberation, Dalits and their leaders need not celebrate him if they feel it will diminish the stature of their god, can give him the role of  squirrel or Hanuman to Ambedkar.
It is not the admirers but the rivals who keep gandhi alive, for him they are many. Let Gandhi  be die his own pace, man who tried to be closer to truth deserves silent burial.




Saturday, May 24, 2014

The cross we can never shed

Brahmin! Who???
TM krishna, i don’t know him much, since i am not into carnatic music, but his recent article in Hindu and his interview, made me notice him for the kind of response he has kindered especially in the social media. Frankly i am not impressed by his article, the importance is more due to his caste and occupation than for his insights.  He is not the first Brahmin and not the last to criticise his own brethren.  It offers no fresh thoughts or insight to the working of Brahmin mind. It is a rehash of what is there in the pop culture of the collective mind.  His reasons why Brahmins support Modi is layman reasons, some of the reasons are ludicrous, especially the Fair skin reason. Seriously?? Brahmin think Modi as one of them because he is fairer???. Now that entire nation has voted for Modi, what explanation one can offer.
 If  TMK can offer theory based on his narrow experience i can also venture into offering my theory. when i say Brahmins i mean tamil Brahmins, just like TM.
Every person, caste and community seeks power there is no exception to this. How is a Brahmin different from others and what do they protect. It is commonly believed that Brahmins by monopolising education and knowledge protected their power centre and have suppressed others through this. I beg to differ my theory is bit different. It by theorising moral and ethical standards and be “seemingly” practicing they have veiled power. This moral superiority comes from religion, philosophy, culture, and personal conduct.  I see Brahmins characters as one who uses moral as power over others, Intellectualise and abstractise morality, and Adapt.
Knowledge of Brahmins were not sought after, it is not of much use to many. Knowledge of Rituals, Vedas and Sanskrit is of no use. Even today not many aspire to learn those.  Many of the injunctions and rituals were hard on Brahmins than on other communities. They were willing to go through this pain and suffering to guard the moral “religious” power over people. What these knowledge do is intellectualise ethics and the personal conduct. Seemingly simple life, discipline, personal hygiene (including food), religiousness and intelligence were the foundation of their power. In fact i would put knowledge as a last factor. Even today you can see that. Idiot Brahmin is accepted, it will not raise eyebrows, but Brahmin (visualise with the Brahmin identities_ eating non-veg, alchohol will be a scandal. Krishna, will not loose his popularity because he has spoken against Brahmins. But the day he smokes in the shabha, or sings drunkard, no matter how great his concert was he will loose his popularity. You can see that through out history. Brahmins won Buddhism not just by usurping maya from them, but also vegetarianism and ascetism from them. This is what has become an integral part of their life not Maya Vadha or infinity.  Because this gave them the moral edge over others.  One can see this is bakthi movement as well. Though many bhakthas were non Brahmins, the intellectualisation of bhakthi, and internalising bhakthi in the personal conduct of every day life, Brahmin held the moral authority again. This was also the period Brahmins moved from Vedic rituals to songs, bhajans, kirtanas, because this gave the moral authority.  You can see this change after british, british challenge to the Brahmins were not an intellectual challenge, it was not the science and industry that posed challenge, it was moral high ground of European civilisation that posed the challenge. Brahmins responded to these challenges by reforming  their religion and practice.  One can see the most conservative Brahmin will not defend caste prejudice in public s/he doesn’t want to seen as immoral (it is different issue whether they practice because for them moral is power to use not an end in itself) TM Krishna is part of that lineage which is resurrecting Brahmin power by reforming belief systems.  With this prelude, is Modi a poster boy of Brahmins???, let us ask another question, is Jayalalitha poster girl of Brahmins. No she is not, Brahmins may vote for her, because of TINA factor, but they can never be proud of her. Similarly Modi is not a Brahmin, he doesn’t have any brahminical character to associate, his language, metaphors, intelligence are not. He doesn’t give them the moral superiority. One can understand this by RSS BJP relationship. Brahmin is naturally inclined towards RSS, swayam sevaks have tolerant contempt for BJP workers. RSS lends BJP its karyakarthas not for infusing intelligence in the organisation. BJP listens to them because they believe they are morally superior to them in life style, in personal conduct and self less work. You can hear this in the campaign trail as well, swayam sevaks and BJP workers don’t work together. For RSS BJP is a necessary evil.  One would be tempted to say that Brahmins natural ally should be congress, their snobbishness, resentment for physical hard-work, moral arrogance, less aggressive, hypocracy are typical Brahmin character. May be Brahmins support BJP for being exactly opposite to them. TM Krishna may be right in this, they may like Modi because he is unlike them, but he is never one of them. Remember, Brahmins were loyal and worked hard in the past for non Brahmin kings and queens including the british. But none of them are remembered and found place in the house of brahmins. But many non Brahmin religious leaders, saints including in some house Gandhi finds much better place.
My test for a Brahmin if he/she has transcended caste lines are very simple. For all the intellectual, Bhakthi and karma marga Brahmins have treaded, they fail miserably in physical work and unconditional love.  Because physical work challenges their intellectual power, Love their moral superiority. There are Brahmins more Buddhist than Buddha in thought and practice, more gandhi than gandhi, we know what happened to them.
Whether krishna transcends this or not i don’t know. But i know one thing for sure it is difficult, for one i experience this every day. If you like or hate some one because of moral and ideological reason, then you are undoubtedly a Brahmin.



Monday, January 7, 2013

Oppression



Boys and girls should have separate bus
Girls should wear modest dress
They should not talk
It is an urban phenomenon
Hang the rapist
All girls are like sisters
Alcholol should be banned
Prostitution should be legalized.

The conversation and actions lately on the rape is hovering on controlling sexual thoughts. In a sense rape is because men cant control their libido roused by sight of women. There is  no question that woman raise sexuality of most of the men (It is vice versa for women as well) the very existence of us is founded on this mutual attraction. But is the sex and attraction towards women lead to rape??. Does the need to have good life lead to murder and theft.  Apart from such absurd solution to reduce crime by quarantining women and men, there is no real evidence whether such
Rape/sexual harassment is about power , it is not just about sex. (we can for now ignore the psychopaths). In the history of gang rapes, the major perpetrators are the army and the police. It the power which makes otherwise good people commit this crime. Men in uniform never honoured powerless women.  No constable rapes his senior, no soldier has raped generals daughter regardless of whether he is sexually starved for years or he is in inebriated condition.
This is the power that comes with authority, tradition, money , muscle etc. unless this structure is addressed the rape will continue. rape is another form of aggression, men are murdered, boys are molested, women are raped.  Free sex, sex education, dry state, Indian culture, burka, male escort cant stop this violence. Society which has less hierarchy ,balanced power can.
Meanwhile
Keep our boys away from the girls!!!!!!!!
Don’t let them out in night.
Never let police man control our lives (it is better to listen to khap panchayat dikkat)
Never ask religious leader their opinion
Don’t listen to Arnab  Goswami
Girls always go out in a gang of girls.
Make sure all public  transport has less men than women.
Make co education compulsory, but with fewer boys there.
Have item numbers with only male lead.
Celebrate gays.