Saturday, January 02, 2010

Movements and ideologies - India

I was discussing with Maju about various people's movements in Europe. I thought of making a note on Indian movements.

Indian National Congress: Humiliated feudal+clerical nexus(no longer aristocrats since British were in place, Ethical secularism by nature) and Bourgeoisie (Ethical religiosity by nature). Against British aristocracy. Socialist turned capitalist.

Muslim League: Humiliated Muslim feudals (no longer aristocrats since British were in place, Unethical religiosity by nature) and Bourgeoisie. Initially, against British aristocracy but later Islamic ethnocentrism to re-establish feudal order. Feudal economy.

Indian Communist Party: Humiliated educated feudal+clerical nexus (no longer aristocrats since British were in place). Against feudals. Socialist.

Dravidian movement: Bourgeoisie (Officially atheist and unlike any other Bourgeoisie in this respect). Anti-Clerical and anti-religious. Theoretically capitalist.

Bharatiya Janata Party: Hindu Bourgeoisie + clerical nexus. (Unethical religiosity, unlike European Bourgeoisie movements which were ethically religious). Against secularism. Capitalist.

Janata Dal/Samajawadi party/Bahujan Samaj Party: Caste based. Numerically strong castes (farmers, herders and Dalits respectively). Against discrimination. Socialist. (BSP-Capitalist?).

Hindu nationalist movements: Clerical(Unethical religiosity by nature). Anti-Islam and anti-Christianity.

Islamic fundamentalist movements: Proletarian(Ethical religiosity by nature). Used by the Muslim feudal establishment. Anti un-Islam.


Maju said...

Glad that our little conversation was so productive. Interesting review, though I miss the Maoists (they may be illegal but they exist anyhow).

Socialist turned capitalist.

That's what we call social-democracy (and in the leftist circles of my youth was sometimes used as derogatory term). I think in Jamaica used to call such things a "violin government": held by the left but played by the right. :D

Anyhow, as much of our discussion was about Protestantism and its influence, I recalled now that some have compared Sikhism with Protestantism (and Parsis with Jews as well), partly because both currents appeared about the same time. However I'm not totally persuaded of the parallel, what do you think?

manju said...

If you consider Sikhism was founded by Bourgeoisie, it may be compared to Protestantism. But its influence is only in the linguistic region of its founders. There was one such movement in South too. Lingayat movement (12th century) in Karnataka was strongly backed by occupational/artisan groups. And was anti-caste at its inception(became caste ridden within two centuries). Similar is the case with Ezhava Saiva movement in Kerala in 20th century. Probably, Sikhism was identified different from the caste system or Hinduism. However, other too sort of remained part of Hinduism contradictions.

Parsees have established themselves as the merchant community. Probably, that is the reason for the comparison. However, there wasn't any religious prejudice against them. They were happy to play along "caste marry within own kind" rule of the society. I don't think the society was harsh on anybody that conformed with the caste rules.

manju said...

other too -> other two

Maju said...

Against what you seem to think the fact that Jews have survived to this day, unlike Pagan Greco-Romans, Celts or Germanics, unlike Isians and so many others, clearly indicates that Jews were protected not persecuted (which was the exception, not the rule - at least until Christians wanted to take their crucial economic niche, already in modernity).

However there was a moral contempt against "bankers", as happens today, and that was the usual trigger of pogroms, when they happened. Unlike in India, tolerance to other religions and sects was not the rule in Christian Europe at all - but still Jews were tolerated normally because of the direct connection of their religion with Christianity (just a sect of Judaism in fact) and their filling in for a critical role (banking, lending with interest) that was morally and legally forbidden to Christians.

manju said...

Unlike in India, tolerance to other religions and sects was not the rule in Christian Europe at all

It's a meaningless statement considering the treatment of the so-called lower castes. The violence was directed within the system. In modern India as the purity-pollution rules have loosened and the castes are becoming a homogeneous entity like Muslims and Christians, the violence is being directed against the outside religions.

Though there are indications that Jains were massacred by Saivas in Tamil region in the past.