ANTI-BRAHMANISM SHOULD STOP!
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
By Francois Gautier
Rediff
June 15, 2006
The first article
http://in.rediff.com/news/2006/may/23franc.htm
published by rediff on Brahmins as an underprivileged
community, brought a flurry of reactions, mostly of
surprise: "What, Brahmins as toilet cleaners, coolies,
rickshaw pullers, priests earning less than Rs 150 a
month... How is it possible, we always thought that
Brahmins were a rich, fat, arrogant community?" Many
Brahmins and other upper castes expressed online their
relief that someone was speaking about their plight, that
for once they were not attacked, made fun of, ridiculed.
Of course there were also a few hostile e-mails, accusing
the author of upper casteism, of anti-Dalits bias.
One would have thought however, that at a time when
reservation was the hottest journalistic topic, the media
would have seized this story and made it its own. After
all, isn't impartial journalism to show both sides of the
story?
Don't you think, for instance, that the discovery that
all 50 Sulabh Shauchalayas (public toilets) in Delhi are
cleaned and looked after by Brahmins -- traditionally the
task of the lowest of the lowest caste -- and that this
noble institution was started by a Brahmin, Dr Bindeshwar
Pathak, makes a wonderful story, both for the print and
electronic media?
That is what I believed, at any rate. So when I
discovered that the Art of Living Foundation was
conducting workshops for all coolies, irrespective of
their religion and caste of the Delhi railway station --
and that quite a few of them were Brahmins -- I thought I
could share this story and the Sulabh Shauchalayas scoop,
with a few journalistic acquaintances, who would jump on
it with glee. Unfortunately I was very wrong.
Initially, some young journalists were enthusiastic and
joined us in our investigation. We expected the story to
hit the headlines soon and be taken up by the entire
press, hungry for something different than the strike of
the medicos, or Arjun Singh's adamant attitude. But
nothing happened.
We called them day after day, proposed some more data,
but still no story came out. Then one of the young
journalists, working for one of the largest media outfits
in India told us off the record that the sub-editor,
backed by the editor, had killed the story in true
journalistic freedom.
The second scenario we encountered was stone silence: the
star anchors, bureau chiefs, editors of national English
newspapers whom I personally contacted, either did not
return my calls or were evasive.
Third scenario: Downright hostility: "You're a right
winger, a pro-BJP-RSS journalist" etc. What does truth
and investigative journalism have to do with the BJP (who
by the way did no more than the Congress for the Kashmiri
Brahmins, for instance, when it was in power)? I don't
know.
Some journalists, initially willing to do a story, backed
out after some time under the pretext that the data was
not solid enough. Not solid enough? Does flimsy and
unchecked data ever stop the Indian media to publish
slanderous stories in the recent past?
Then, I came to the conclusion that more than fifty years
later, the Nehruvian culture which directly brainwashed
two generations of Indians in certain thinking patterns,
has survived today. Actually, you have to go farther back
than Nehru. For Jawaharlal was a true end product of
Macaulay's policy of creating Indians who would be
Indians by the colour of their skins, but British in
their thinking. Thus, the English outlook on India
survives today in India's intellectual class,
particularly the journalists, who often cast a
Westernised, anti-spiritual, pro-minority, anti-majority,
un-Indian, anti-Brahmins and other upper castes -- look
on their own country.
It is true that Nehru started from a positive volition:
How to solve India's huge class and caste disparity? How
to appease a Muslim minority which ruled India ruthlessly
for ten centuries and was not ready to be ruled by those
who were for a long time Islam's pliant subjects?
But Nehru went overboard. He made the paupers of
yesteryear the saints of modern India, allowing some
states to literally hound out Brahmins and other upper
castes. He twisted history and thanks to docile
historians, made of cruel Muslim invaders and rulers, the
benefactors of medieval India.
He went to the extent of excusing the razing and sacking
of thousands of exquisite temples all over India, by
saying that Muslim invaders such as Babar did it because
these temples were full of hidden gold and jewels,
damning again indirectly the poor hapless Brahmins, who
were beheaded by Muslim invaders, crucified in Goa by the
Portuguese Inquisition, vilified by British missionaries,
and morally crucified today by their own brothers and
sisters.
It is true that Brahmins may be paying today for the
excesses of yesterday. In ancient times, as Sri Aurobindo
wrote: 'A Brahmin was a Brahmin only if he cultivated the
spiritual temperament and acquired the spiritual training
which alone would qualify him for the task.'
But once Brahmanism became hereditary, arrogance,
complacency and casteism became rampant, ultimately
bringing the downfall of Brahmins, a downfall which the
Dalai Lama defines (for his own people) as Black Karma.
Thus, thanks to the lingering influence of Nehruvianism,
'Brahmins' remain today a dirty word, even in the face of
reality: that Dalits have considerably come up since 1947
in Indian society, that no nation in the world has done
so much for its underprivileged (India had a Dalit
President -- did the US ever have a Black President?).
But the intellectual elite of India, which never mentions
these facts, continues to hide its face in the sand like
an ostrich, refusing to see the reality.
And rampant anti-Brahmanism and upper castes, first used
by the Muslim invaders, then by the British colonialists
and missionaries, is still in vogue at the hands of
Nehruvians, Marxists, Indian Christians and politicians
in search of the votes of Dalits and Muslims, which
combined together make and unmake prime ministers.
Yet, Brahmins and other upper castes have played an
invaluable role in Indian history, as Dr Bindeshwar
Pathak, the founder of the Sulabh Shauchalaya Movement
remarks: 'Society sustained the Brahmins and other upper
castes earlier, who upheld the Hindu scriptures and Hindu
culture. Today Hinduism is on the decline day-by-day.
There is a lack of ancient knowledge. No political party
has objected to reservation thanks to vote-bank politics.
People have a very short memory. They have forgotten the
contribution made by Brahmins to our society.'
And who says that Brahmins and other upper castes are
anti-Dalits. Some of India's top avatars, saints and
gurus were of low caste and are still worshipped today by
all upper castes. Valmiki, the composer of the Ramayana,
was a fisherman; Ved Vyasa, the epic poet of the
Mahabharata, which also contains the Bhagavad Gita, the
Bible of Future Humanity, was the son of a fisherwoman;
Krishna was from the shepherd's caste. And are not
today's Amritanandamayi or Satya Sai Baba of low caste
birth? Don't they have millions of Indians, many of them
from upper castes, bowing down to them?
Anti-Brahmanism has to be stopped!
This inter-caste war, triggered by the politicians' greed
for votes, has to be defused.
FACT, my Foundation, which conducts exhibitions on
persecuted minorities, whether the Kashmiri Pandits, the
Christians, Buddhist Chakmas and Hindus suffering in
Bangladesh at the hands of fundamentalists in Bangladesh,
or the Tibetans facing a cultural and spiritual genocide
in Tibet, decided to take things in hand.
We started, with the help of a few dedicated friends, a
film on Brahmins and other upper castes as an
underprivileged community. This film will lead to a
photoexhibition and hopefully to a book. All testimonies
and documents are welcome.
The future of this country lies in a unified India, where
all castes will find their just place, where all will
feel Indians first and belonging to this caste or that
one, after.
More at:
http://ia.rediff.com/news/2006/jun/15franc.htm
Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/24fq83
http://www.mantra.com/jai
http://www.mantra.com/jyotish
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
DISCLAIMER AND CONDITIONS
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
hari....@indero.com
or any ethnic group abuse stop.
Labels in india is one of its greatest curses and moral failings and
source of more conflict then any other single social factor. When all
come to realize and think and practice the equality before law for all
citizens much would improve. When each prson judged all other prsons on
the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
If every indian started this instant to reject labels as being the basis
for any judgement, then all would improve.
But this is mostly a dream. One of the first things two people do on
meeting is to compare their list of mutual labels and then proceed to
act accordingly. What stupidity and what real excuse for so much evil
and terror comes from this.
uNmaiviLambi
When each prson judged all other prsons on
> the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
> morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
That is called varna.
Caste is social and occupational. Has nothing to do with Hindu
religion
Dušan Vukotić
Kallu Mallu
> I think the more nobel and moral idea would be for all "anti" by caste
> or any ethnic group abuse stop.
>
Your opinion, so okay.
> Labels in india is one of its greatest curses and moral failings and
> source of more conflict then any other single social factor. When all
> come to realize and think and practice the equality before law for all
> citizens much would improve. When each prson judged all other prsons on
> the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
> morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
>
Save me the moral bleating and the MLK Jr. style. Why single out India?
You mean there are no "labels" in "enlightened" Western democracies?
Yes, it is necessary for all to "think and practice" equality before
law. Period. What labels people choose for themselves is their business,
and one cannot demand that all follow some dimwitted principle, and one
cannot demand a slice of the pie based on labels, either.
> If every indian started this instant to reject labels as being the basis
> for any judgement, then all would improve.
>
You might a couple of slices of cheese and bread to go with that
baloney. Some of this is highly idealistic woolly nonsense, and sounds
downright phony.
> But this is mostly a dream. One of the first things two people do on
> meeting is to compare their list of mutual labels and then proceed to
> act accordingly. What stupidity and what real excuse for so much evil
> and terror comes from this.
Yea, your dreams can become someone else's nightmare. There is
absolutely nothing wrong with a societal structure that people choose
for themselves as long as such a structure is fluid enough for people to
move, and all are clear about their duties. The problem arises when
people make "value judgments" and declare one human to be superior to
another. In the Indian context, I'll reiterate my position once again -
if you are a Hindu, work towards restructuring Hindu society to
something more positive and less defeatist. If you aren't a Hindu, I
thank you for your input. I'll take it under advisement.
Romanise
while begging others to leave his family out.
On May 13, 6:05 am, Kallu Mallu <KalluMallu...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dušan Vukotić
hari....@indero.com
> or any ethnic group abuse stop.
"Your opinion, so okay."
> Labels in india is one of its greatest curses and moral failings and
> source of more conflict then any other single social factor. When all
> come to realize and think and practice the equality before law for all
> citizens much would improve. When each prson judged all other prsons
on
> the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
> morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
"Save me the moral bleating and the MLK Jr. style. Why single out India?
You mean there are no "labels" in "enlightened" Western democracies?"
MLK changed an entire nation and is honored for it the world around.
India because of what is evoked in the subjectline. MLK took many ideas
from a little old man in india, too bad both of their ideas have yet to
find a home there.
"Yes, it is necessary for all to "think and practice" equality before
law. Period. What labels people choose for themselves is their business,
and one cannot demand that all follow some dimwitted principle, and one
cannot demand a slice of the pie based on labels, either."
One can damn at evry point the evil use of labels and laugh those using
them off the street for being fools. That is the normal way of peer
pressure which makes up most of what guides our behaviors and ideas.
Make such labels the laughing stock of every day behavior and watch
people retreat from using them.
> If every indian started this instant to reject labels as being the
basis
> for any judgement, then all would improve.
"You might a couple of slices of cheese and bread to go with that
baloney. Some of this is highly idealistic woolly nonsense, and sounds
downright phony."
Tell it to MLK and that little old man.
> But this is mostly a dream. One of the first things two people do on
> meeting is to compare their list of mutual labels and then proceed to
> act accordingly. What stupidity and what real excuse for so much evil
> and terror comes from this.
"Yea, your dreams can become someone else's nightmare. "
Indeed, how many times for a person to be laughed out of a room for the
nightmare to become real?
"There is absolutely nothing wrong with a societal structure that people
choose for themselves as long as such a structure is fluid enough for
people to move, and all are clear about their duties. "
And when labels has little or nothing to do with either the structure
nor the movement. And when labels do not dictate by accident of birth
ones "duties".
"The problem arises "when people make "value judgments" and declare one
human to be superior to another. In the Indian context, I'll reiterate
my position once again - if you are a Hindu, work towards restructuring
Hindu society to something more positive and less defeatist. If you
aren't a Hindu, I thank you for your input. I'll take it under
advisement."
We agree with one exception, substitute "citizen" for "hindu" and it is
a good position.
India is not hinduism nor hinduism india.
hari....@indero.com
> the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
> morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
"That is called varna.
Caste is social and occupational. Has nothing to do with Hindu
religion"
Then it should be easy for you to eliminate all use and reference to
caste from yourself. It should by merely changing job one can change
caste?
Hindu leaders then should take lead in removing use of caste in all
matters because it seems to put bad light on hinduism in the eyes of
many.
Chetan
>> I think the more nobel and moral idea would be for all "anti" by caste
>> or any ethnic group abuse stop.
>
> "Your opinion, so okay."
>
>> Labels in india is one of its greatest curses and moral failings and
>> source of more conflict then any other single social factor. When all
>> come to realize and think and practice the equality before law for all
>> citizens much would improve. When each prson judged all other prsons
> on
>> the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
>> morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
>
> "Save me the moral bleating and the MLK Jr. style. Why single out India?
> You mean there are no "labels" in "enlightened" Western democracies?"
>
> MLK changed an entire nation and is honored for it the world around.
> India because of what is evoked in the subjectline. MLK took many ideas
> from a little old man in india, too bad both of their ideas have yet to
> find a home there.
However, what either of them had to say does not contradict the
priciple of fair treatment.
Like it or not, labels exist precisely because it might provide
information that is not otherwise available. In the US, for example,
there are red-necks, trailer trash, WASP (white Anglo-Saxon
Protestant with sometimes Male appended to it, usually as a member of
elite group). Some are obviously derogatory, but they exist.
> "Yes, it is necessary for all to "think and practice" equality before
> law. Period. What labels people choose for themselves is their business,
> and one cannot demand that all follow some dimwitted principle, and one
> cannot demand a slice of the pie based on labels, either."
>
> One can damn at evry point the evil use of labels and laugh those using
> them off the street for being fools. That is the normal way of peer
> pressure which makes up most of what guides our behaviors and ideas.
> Make such labels the laughing stock of every day behavior and watch
> people retreat from using them.
>
>> If every indian started this instant to reject labels as being the
> basis
>> for any judgement, then all would improve.
I agree with this to some extent.
On the other hand, I do not think all labels are bad. It is only when
labels are created/used to put someone down or in a context where it
is irrelevant it is bad. Otherwise, they do carry some information,
rightly or wrongly. For example, both kallu and mallu are labels. I
don't think any kind of slight was intended in those labels. Yet it
is also possible to use them in contexts where the usage may be
offensive.
Phantom
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Chetan wrote:
> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 14:59:07 -0700
> From: Chetan <chetan...@xspam.sbcglobal.net>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.religion.hindu,
> sci.lang, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: ANTI-BRAHMANISM SHOULD STOP!
>
> hari....@indero.com writes:
>
>>> I think the more nobel and moral idea would be for all "anti" by caste
>>> or any ethnic group abuse stop.
>>
>> "Your opinion, so okay."
>>
>>> Labels in india
"Labels" also exist in other countries, too. (more below)
is one of its greatest curses and moral failings and
>>> source of more conflict then any other single social factor. When all
>>> come to realize and think and practice the equality before law for all
>>> citizens much would improve. When each prson judged all other prsons
>> on
>>> the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
>>> morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
>>
>> "Save me the moral bleating and the MLK Jr. style. Why single out India?
>> You mean there are no "labels" in "enlightened" Western democracies?"
>>
>> MLK changed an entire nation and is honored for it the world around.
>> India because of what is evoked in the subjectline. MLK took many ideas
>> from a little old man in india, too bad both of their ideas have yet to
>> find a home there.
>
> However, what either of them had to say does not contradict the
> priciple of fair treatment.
>
> Like it or not, labels exist precisely because it might provide
> information that is not otherwise available.
People who care will be more careful about how they perceive other people
and talk about them. The problem is _discrimination_ based particularly on
_unflattering_ (or, derogatory) labels.
In the US, for example,
> there are red-necks, trailer trash, WASP (white Anglo-Saxon
> Protestant with sometimes Male appended to it, usually as a member of
> elite group). Some are obviously derogatory, but they exist.
I know of no law that says you must invite person X to your social party,
but the anti-discrimination laws cover employment, house renting/purchase,
etc.
"Political Correctness" is controversial in the US depending on the
situation but I interpret it as "being diplomatic, civilized, and fair" to
anyone regardless of their color, religion, etc.
If people want to be part of the global community then they should be
treating everyone equally (the only exceptions should be criminals and
extreme trouble-makers, etc. )
>> "Yes, it is necessary for all to "think and practice" equality before
>> law. Period. What labels people choose for themselves is their business,
>> and one cannot demand that all follow some dimwitted principle, and one
>> cannot demand a slice of the pie based on labels, either."
>>
>> One can damn at evry point the evil use of labels and laugh those using
>> them off the street for being fools. That is the normal way of peer
>> pressure which makes up most of what guides our behaviors and ideas.
>> Make such labels the laughing stock of every day behavior and watch
>> people retreat from using them.
>>
>>> If every indian started this instant to reject labels as being the
>> basis
>>> for any judgement, then all would improve.
>
> I agree with this to some extent.
> On the other hand, I do not think all labels are bad. It is only when
> labels are created/used to put someone down or in a context where it
> is irrelevant it is bad.
You should consider labels that are "neutral" (politically, religiously,
ethnically, etc) rather than labels that are are derogatory or impugne
someone prejudicially or unfairly.
Otherwise, they do carry some information,
> rightly or wrongly. For example, both kallu and mallu are labels. I
> don't think any kind of slight was intended in those labels. Yet it
> is also possible to use them in contexts where the usage may be
> offensive.
Some people are jokesters.
Final comment below.....at end....
I get the impression that there are some Hindus who think that India is
only Hinduism, and Hinduism means India. At least one person on these NGs
made reference to "the hindu embassy" and someone else asked what was the
address of that embassy.
Or, maybe the Hindus will want to someday change the name "India" to
Hindu?
hari....@indero.com
uNmaiviLambi
> =A0When each prson judged all other prsons on
>
> > the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
> > morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
>
> "That is called varna.
>
> Caste is social and occupational. Has nothing to do with Hindu
> religion"
>
> Then it should be easy for you to eliminate all use and reference to
> caste from yourself.
You are not understanding the problem at all. I dont think caste needs
to be eliminated at all. I dont refer to caste and dont mind if some
one refers to it!!
It should by merely changing job one can change
> caste?
Caste by definition is by birth. That is why it is called jaathi. That
which comes by birth is jaathi. So changing job is not changing caste!
But long ago, caste decided occupations! Then, if that is followed,
occupational caste will change with job change. Birth caste cant
change!! Nowadays many people do different jobs. Majority dont do jobs
according to ancient occupational caste decided by birth! Having said
that please remember that jaathi or occupational caste is not ordained
by Hindu religion any where. Caste is purely social like football
teams. I am sure even you will agree football teams are not ordained
by Hindus scriptures
>
> Hindu leaders then should take lead in removing use of caste in all
> matters
No need for that at all. Irrational
because it seems to put bad light on hinduism in the eyes of
> many.
Hindus cant do what nonHindus demand or are pleased with. If I say
Christians should stop worshiping Jesus because he was an illegitimate
child, will Christians do that?
hari....@indero.com
to be eliminated at all. I dont refer to caste and dont mind if some
one refers to it!!"
Then you don't mind to be called any caste, or no caste or even tribal?
=A0It should by merely changing job one can change
> caste?
"Caste by definition is by birth. That is why it is called jaathi. That
which comes by birth is jaathi. So changing job is not changing caste!
But
long ago, caste decided occupations! Then, if that is followed,
occupational caste will change with job change. Birth caste cant
change!!
Nowadays many people do different jobs. Majority dont do jobs according
to
ancient occupational caste decided by birth! Having said that please
remember that jaathi or occupational caste is not ordained by Hindu
religion any where. Caste is purely social like football teams. I am
sure
even you will agree football teams are not ordained by Hindus
scriptures"
So all children of computer expert is caste and all birth caste
disappears with that profession and every one uses only computer expert
caste to make judgement about them? When shadow of out house cleaner
caste falls on computer, does it have to be given ritual of cleansing?
There are so many scriptures. Football could be there. Sometimes it is
in mystical language requireing keen mind to see football is there?
> Hindu leaders then should take lead in removing use of caste in all
> matters
"No need for that at all. Irrational"
Given misuse of caste to abuse people should religious leaders take
moral stand and lead adherents in right path?
because it seems to put bad light on hinduism in the eyes of
> many.
" Hindus cant do what nonHindus demand or are pleased with. If I say
Christians should stop worshiping Jesus because he was an illegitimate
child, will Christians do that?"
Maybe if jews take moral lead then it will be done?
Phantom
My comments are only at the very end, just scroll there directly....
On Wed, 13 May 2009, uNmaiviLambi wrote:
> Date: Wed, 13 May 2009 17:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
> From: uNmaiviLambi <tripur...@yahoo.com>
> Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian, alt.fan.jai-maharaj, alt.religion.hindu,
> sci.lang, alt.computer.consultants
> Subject: Re: ANTI-BRAHMANISM SHOULD STOP!
>
OK, I will tell you these three stories about Christians and laws:
1. During a period around 1400-1600 AD (I don't know the precise dates
because it varied from country to country, a phrase in the Bible,
something along the line "Thou shall not suffer a witch to live," and
before science and understanding cause and effect and superstition caused
many women and some men to be tried in court, found guilty (not all,
though) of witchcraft, and burned at the stake. Mostly in Salem,
Massachusetts, and parts of France and Germany. It was almost a "fad" and
one thing that made it end was one of the kings came out and just said
"This will stop" and then it did. So, that is one example where civil
secular law is more powerful.
2, The practice of inquisition (mainly pushed by the Pope/Catholics) also
had a longer history, but slowly died out because (primarily) people
slowly got fed up with it, even among the clergy.
3, Starting around 1500 AD in western Europe, there was a split-off branch
of Protestantism (which was a rebellion against "mainstream" Christianity
which was Catholic) and for a period, maybe, roughtly 200+ years (I don't
have exact dates), there were wars between the Catholics and Protestants,
and each killing each other (I can see Jai Maharaj with a big smile right
now) until the leaders of the churches somehow convinced the "flocks" to
cease this.
I don't know how Hindus think but I also think there is a spectrum from
"moderate" to "hard line" (including nationalists and fascists), and like
Europe's history of at least 1800 years of struggle between the church and
kings/parlaments for power, India may undergo some also long (decades? to
century?+/-) for power between the govt of India and the Hindus, for how
people will live.
As I read about Afghanistan, described as substantially moderate Muslims
being very worried about the radical-fanatic Taliban and Al-queda, and
thinking to myself that this is substantially about a religious war aimed
at grabbing power and control. Pakistan is another big trouble spot and
all I can say is I'm glad I'm on the other side of the world. But, what
would be the implicatiions for India if the USA got out of Pakiland and
Afghan?
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
This is one meaning of caste in Indian English but doesn't describe
the use of caste in US English. A description of the use of "caste" in
US English, put in terms that an Indian can understand is:
A group of jaatis (or a group of individuals) who are denied (or
accorded) some set of occupations and/or some set of privileges.
Is there no one in India who has been denied some job or some
privilege because he hails from some set of jaatis? If there is such a
person, then that set of jaatis is a caste as per usage in US English.
Dušan Vukotić
ThickTamizhan
> I agree with this to some extent.
> On the other hand, I do not think all labels are bad. It is only when
> labels are created/used to put someone down or in a context where it
> is irrelevant it is bad. Otherwise, they do carry some information,
> rightly or wrongly. For example, both kallu and mallu are labels. I
> don't think any kind of slight was intended in those labels. Yet it
> is also possible to use them in contexts where the usage may be
> offensive.
"Kallu" is definitely a derogatory term. Few if any people would refer
to themselves as kallu. It's like a black person referring to themselves
as n***ers. They do among themselves, of course, but that is a recent
aberration. "Kallu Mallu" has made it clear that he is no kallu.
Chetan
Whether you consider something as derogatory or no depends on the
outlook as well. None of the terms here indicate respect anyway. But
the analogy here is a black person calling oneself black. Even when
non-blacks refer to blacks as a group, there are times when it is more
appropriate than the politically correct term African American.
An example is when talking of effect of sunlight on skin and/or when
the people involved may or may not be African/American.
This is where the question of discrimination comes into play.
One of ideas is that calling someone by whatever name they choose is
not trying to put that person down - it is their own choice.
Kalidas Mallu Unquotawala
>> I think the more nobel and moral idea would be for all "anti" by caste
>> or any ethnic group abuse stop.
>
> "Your opinion, so okay."
>
>> Labels in india is one of its greatest curses and moral failings and
>> source of more conflict then any other single social factor. When all
>> come to realize and think and practice the equality before law for all
>> citizens much would improve. When each prson judged all other prsons
> on
>> the content of their character and their behavir by principles and
>> morals indenpendent of any single group, then much would improve.
>
> "Save me the moral bleating and the MLK Jr. style. Why single out India?
> You mean there are no "labels" in "enlightened" Western democracies?"
>
Your quote attribution scheme kinda sucks. Is this by design? It makes
it easier to blur the lines between your thoughts and those of the
person you're responding to, no?
Since you are really big into "labels," and a couple two others had some
observations to make about the choice of words for my net persona, I am
back with more "labels" that are hopefully "politically correct". Or, in
keeping with your woolly outlook, should I have left the From field
blank? :-)
Anyways, using Prince's trendsetting ways, "The Human Formerly Known As
Kallu Mallu" is now "Kalidas Mallu Unquotawala" (should get the
"Goddess' Gift to Humankind" chasing his own tail ;-))
> MLK changed an entire nation and is honored for it the world around.
> India because of what is evoked in the subjectline. MLK took many ideas
> from a little old man in india, too bad both of their ideas have yet to
> find a home there.
>
Gandhi (didn't know you and "the little old man" MKG were buds) made the
entire world think differently, and also helped shape MLK Jr.'s civil
rights campaign. Yes, both have been honored (immortalized?) through
holidays commemorating their birth, and (very often phony) public
displays/functions. Other than a day's worth of lip service, their lives
and their message are largely ignored in today's world. Ever been to the
inner cities of large metros in the US? So save me the sanctimonious
hokum about MLK Jr.'s ideas finding a home in India.
> "Yes, it is necessary for all to "think and practice" equality before
> law. Period. What labels people choose for themselves is their business,
> and one cannot demand that all follow some dimwitted principle, and one
> cannot demand a slice of the pie based on labels, either."
>
> One can damn at evry point the evil use of labels and laugh those using
> them off the street for being fools. That is the normal way of peer
> pressure which makes up most of what guides our behaviors and ideas.
> Make such labels the laughing stock of every day behavior and watch
> people retreat from using them.
>
Laughter is good for every one. Knock yourself out. After a couple of
days of amusement, I can see a paddywagon hauling you off for a little
corrective action.
>> If every indian started this instant to reject labels as being the
> basis
>> for any judgement, then all would improve.
>
> "You might a couple of slices of cheese and bread to go with that
> baloney. Some of this is highly idealistic woolly nonsense, and sounds
> downright phony."
>
> Tell it to MLK and that little old man.
>
I'm quite ready yet to snuff it off :-) However, I'll surely carry your
"message" to them when I am good and ready. Until then, continue bleating.
>> But this is mostly a dream. One of the first things two people do on
>> meeting is to compare their list of mutual labels and then proceed to
>> act accordingly. What stupidity and what real excuse for so much evil
>> and terror comes from this.
>
> "Yea, your dreams can become someone else's nightmare. "
>
> Indeed, how many times for a person to be laughed out of a room for the
> nightmare to become real?
>
Dunno, you tell me. Your entertainment value is so high and the laughs
you provide are too numerous for me to make a fair call.
> "There is absolutely nothing wrong with a societal structure that people
> choose for themselves as long as such a structure is fluid enough for
> people to move, and all are clear about their duties. "
>
> And when labels has little or nothing to do with either the structure
> nor the movement. And when labels do not dictate by accident of birth
> ones "duties".
>
Continue to obsess with "labels" (whatever that means). I suppose you
simply use a thumbprint to avoid using labels altogether. You could
change your name to "Amar Akbar Anthony - Citizen of the World," you know.
> "The problem arises "when people make "value judgments" and declare one
> human to be superior to another. In the Indian context, I'll reiterate
> my position once again - if you are a Hindu, work towards restructuring
> Hindu society to something more positive and less defeatist. If you
> aren't a Hindu, I thank you for your input. I'll take it under
> advisement."
>
> We agree with one exception, substitute "citizen" for "hindu" and it is
> a good position.
>
> India is not hinduism nor hinduism india.
I have never equated the two, ever. So, good try, but no cigar. All I
have ever said is that Hindus get to determine their own identity and
forge their destiny within a pluralistic society that is today's India.
I'll be damned if I let any non-Hindu tell me who I ought to be and that
I have to meet some sort of standard of assorted Cardinals and Mullahs.
I make no claim about superiority of Hindus or Hinduism. It is simply
another religious system - a system whose principles I adhere to, and I
am comfortable with. That's all that matters to me. I am not asking
anyone to fall in line with my thinking either. If you don't like it,
tough! Grin and bear it.
Let me also add that I am not particularly enamored by the sexual
proclivities of clergymen (of any religious system) or "discussions"
about them. Neither am I interested in "genealogies" of religious
figures and rationalizations.
Kalidas Mallu Unquotawala
Heh, heh. The nick is in response to snide remarks that were made (by
Western Indians - not on this newsgroup) that Mallus were "so blake" ;-)
This despite the fact that the people making the remarks were just a
shade lighter than jet.
Anyways, if you pronounced "kallu" correctly, it could mean "toddy" (or
in Mallu "toady" ;-)) or a stone :-) :-) :-) :-)
SuryaArya
hari....@indero.com
is
> a good position.
>
> India is not hinduism nor hinduism india.
"I have never equated the two, ever. So, good try, but no cigar. All I
have ever said is that Hindus get to determine their own identity and
forge their destiny within a pluralistic society that is today's India.
I'll be damned if I let any non-Hindu tell me who I ought to be and that
I have to meet some sort of standard of assorted Cardinals and Mullahs.
I make no claim about superiority of Hindus or Hinduism. It is simply
another religious system - a system whose principles I adhere to, and I
am comfortable with. That's all that matters to me. I am not asking
anyone to fall in line with my thinking either. If you don't like it,
tough! Grin and bear it.
Let me also add that I am not particularly enamored by the sexual
proclivities of clergymen (of any religious system) or "discussions"
about them. Neither am I interested in "genealogies" of religious
figures and rationalizations."
Then you of all people should be quick to substitute "citizen" for
"hindu", or any other ethnic label, in a declaration of how india is to
proceed and on what basis matters are to be decided regarding the rights
of each citizen.
We don't want to continue the curse of india of using labels to judge
people or make national goals nor in treatment of one person to another.
ThickTamizhan
"Kallu" is like referring to blacks as "blackies", which is definitely a
derogatory term.
ThickTamizhan
> ThickTamizhan wrote:
>> Chetan wrote:
>>
>>> I agree with this to some extent.
>>> On the other hand, I do not think all labels are bad. It is only when
>>> labels are created/used to put someone down or in a context where it
>>> is irrelevant it is bad. Otherwise, they do carry some information,
>>> rightly or wrongly. For example, both kallu and mallu are labels. I
>>> don't think any kind of slight was intended in those labels. Yet it
>>> is also possible to use them in contexts where the usage may be
>>> offensive.
>>
>> "Kallu" is definitely a derogatory term. Few if any people would refer
>> to themselves as kallu. It's like a black person referring to
>> themselves as n***ers. They do among themselves, of course, but that
>> is a recent aberration. "Kallu Mallu" has made it clear that he is no
>> kallu.
>
> Heh, heh. The nick is in response to snide remarks that were made (by
> Western Indians - not on this newsgroup) that Mallus were "so blake" ;-)
> This despite the fact that the people making the remarks were just a
> shade lighter than jet.
Doesn't this indicate latent racism among Indians? That's what gets me,
all this talk about how whites are so racist, blah blah blah, and the
Indians have this "shades of brown" racism among themselves.
ranjit_...@yahoo.com
I once read a piece that said Marco Polo reported that Tamilians (more
precisely, people at a certain port believed to have been in what is
now Tamilnadu) considered black skin the most beautiful. Blacks in the
US have had a slogan "Black is beautiful". If blacks consider black
beautiful, why the disinclination to call themselves black?
uNmaiviLambi
hari....@indero.com
precisely, people at a certain port believed to have been in what is
now Tamilnadu) considered black skin the most beautiful. Blacks in the
US have had a slogan "Black is beautiful". If blacks consider black
beautiful, why the disinclination to call themselves black?"
There is little disinclination. It is a now older use somewhat. But
you will find few who would give second thought to it.
Obama was referred to in media as the first black president and no one
gave it a second thought.
Kalidas Mallu Unquotawala
Why is all of this surprising to you? Are Indians supposed to be a
completely different species? They are no paragons of virtue, and some
can be blatantly (not so latently) color conscious (in a "Fair & Lovely"
sense). What is the word for "racism" amongst people of the same
enthnicity? Yea, yea, supposedly "caste" is the same as "race". However,
Brahmins come in all shades from "black" to "light tan."
Dušan Vukotić
ThickTamizhan
There is racism among blacks, between light-skinned blacks and "African"
blacks. Like anything else, the perception of beauty is nurtured, and
the rise in global communications has re-shaped what is considered
beautiful. For example, many Jewish girls/women now have plastic surgery
done to their noses, which they consider(now) an unattractive feature.
Personally, I think it depends on the rest of the face. Sangeeta
Bijlani, for example, has what looks like a semitic nose, but it is very
attractive on her, imo.
ThickTamizhan
Not surprised at all, dear chappie, but roiled still, nonetheless?
> Are Indians supposed to be a
> completely different species? They are no paragons of virtue, and some
> can be blatantly (not so latently) color conscious (in a "Fair & Lovely"
> sense). What is the word for "racism" amongst people of the same
> enthnicity? Yea, yea, supposedly "caste" is the same as "race". However,
> Brahmins come in all shades from "black" to "light tan."
Vat? Blake Brahmins? You are missionary liar!
Dušan Vukotić
Kalidas Mallu Unquotawala
Damn, if you are steamed anymore, you'll be a ready meal for a cannibal :-)
>> Are Indians supposed to be a completely different species? They are no
>> paragons of virtue, and some can be blatantly (not so latently) color
>> conscious (in a "Fair & Lovely" sense). What is the word for "racism"
>> amongst people of the same enthnicity? Yea, yea, supposedly "caste" is
>> the same as "race". However, Brahmins come in all shades from "black"
>> to "light tan."
>
> Vat? Blake Brahmins? You are missionary liar!
>
Heh, heh. Will "dark chocolate" work instead of "blake"? Me a missionary
liar? Oh, how wrong can one be, given my headstart with Buddhism ;-) If
a weak coalition results from the recent elections, "Buddham sharanam
gacchami..." ;-) ;-)
