Archaeological sites belong to major sections of human population part of different countries. The artifacts are mostly from an era when nation states were not created or the original population of those places now could be moved to different regions or some of them could be created by non-natives.
Thursday, August 20, 2015
City Planning - 2
We need dryers run by solar power in every residential regions so that people don't have to hang their clothes for drying. This way we can get over that ugly sight of drying clothes. In fact, once we have these dryers available for everyone(for free or nominal charge), hanging clothes should be made punishable under law.
I still don't have a practical solution for public urination.
I still don't have a practical solution for public urination.
Wednesday, August 19, 2015
Bengal famine of 1943 and the caste system
My colleague brought to my attention the point that majority deaths were among artisans because of the famine and not in castes who had land or involved in agriculture in some way.
This was also mentioned in the Wikipedia article
As in previous Bengal famines, the highest mortality was not in previously very poor groups, but among artisans and small traders whose income vanished when people spent all they had on food and did not employ cobblers, carpenters, etc.
The explanation given, that artisans and small traders had no income as nobody spent money on their skills or wares, basically considers existence of artisans and small traders as a natural order of things in India as in any other society.
But that is never true in Indian society.
Those artisans and small traders were endogamous caste units. In other societies, artisans and small traders would have relations among farmers and others. Or in a village everybody would have been related to one another. Of course, there were class differences. But majority lower classes wouldn't have divisions based on occupations such that they would have kith and kin from the same occupational group.
Even class divisions are not natural order of things. However, consider a similar society in India. Would we have read that the majority mortality was among artisans and small traders in that case?
I would think there would have been less hoarding and more distribution of food because of kinship.
Considering the fact that the situation wasn't really bad for the poorest of the poor(who most likely involved in agriculture), I would think situation would not have been so worse for not so poor non-agricultural non-privileged castes.
I certainly think the caste system was responsible for such caste specific deaths.
This is not the only moment of truth for the caste system where it failed spectacularly.
Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Sanskritization and Vegetarian OBCs
The caste system is far from a rigid system in which the position of each component caste is fixed for all time. Movement has always been possible, and especially in the middle regions of the hierarchy. A caste was able, in a generation or two, to rise to a higher position in the hierarchy by adopting vegetarianism and teetotalism, and by Sanskritizing its ritual and pantheon. In short, it took over, as far as possible, the customs, rites, and beliefs of the Brahmins, and adoption of the Brahminic way of life by a low caste seems to have been frequent, though theoretically forbidden. This process has been called 'Sanskritization' in this book, in preference to 'Brahminization', as certain Vedic rites are confined to the Brahmins and the two other 'twice-born' castes.M N Srinivas in Religion and Society Amongst the Coorgs of South India
We don't know what particular castes M N Srinivas was talking about. He was more a caste apologist than an objective anthropologist.
One look at the vegetarian profile of the castes in India shows Sanskritization was just a 'wannabe'ness than a real upward movement. This is particularly true for OBCs.
When Mr. Modi makes a comment that "people who eat meat have a different character", pointing to his upper caste meat eating colleague and rival, he only shows the castiest thought process and not his elevated caste position as a vegetarian.
When I hear vegetarian OBCs gloating that many IT professionals in the US are vegetarians, I wonder whether they really understand the caste profile or do they really believe sense of brotherhood with their non-meat eating privileged castes masks the social and educational backwardness of their fellow OBCs? Hasn't the progress of meat eating societies all over the world helped to overcome their overawed reverence for the caste reference society?
I would think they have a misplaced pride about being vegetarians.
Their real pride should show in non-conformity of Brahmanical rules and not in playing by the rules set by the Brahmins. I believe they should only consider the spirit of their ancestors who didn't think they were low but not the path (vegetarianism) which ultimately served only Brahmanism.
Maybe they just don't understand that they were Sanskritized.
Sunday, August 09, 2015
Nehru and Jinnah
Since a right-wing party has come to the power, it's been open season on Nehru. He is the ultimate villain. Now before getting into Nehru, something about people who putforth such thoughts.
It's difficult to argue with the people who only view well known people as either heroes or villains or any thing in absolute goodness or absolute badness creating irrelevant moral dichotomy. But they of course consider themselves as practical persons.
Let us consider couple of allegations against Nehru.
1. Nehru was not secular as you think
- When they proudly say this something as a 'gotcha', sometimes you get the suspicion that the very radical and counter-intuitive nature of the claim itself might have convinced them the truthiness of it. Considering the unbridled hatred that the Hindutvites show for Nehru in this country, it of course is counter-intuitive. But it's not something people who do not worship Nehru but acknowledge his work towards secularization consider worthy of discussion.
2. Nehru was responsible for the partition not Jinnah.... I mean both are equally responsible.
- This comes with some unclear ideas about Indian-ness, nation-state and even democracy based on majority. Nehru becomes power hungry and Jinnah a rational man finding no place in Hindu dominated India (there are many other reasons for the two-nation theory which of course aren't important here)!
- For all the talk about Jinnah being secular, he certainly showed prejudices that he inherited because of his Muslim identity. He was in the league of atheist and communal Savarkar(though I don't think Jinnah was an atheist).
- When Jinnah joined Muslim League (which he found initially too communal), he endorsed a kind of people who always felt entitled to rule. This section of the Muslim community has always been enemy of an idea of democratic, egalitarian India. The results could be still seen in Pakistan which is still ruled by feudal elites. However, when there was a discussion on partitioning the country, there was another movement from under-privileged caste Muslims opposing it. Even though, they formed the majority in what is now nation-state India, their social standing and the stature of their leaders were insignificant. Their common-sense and rational argument against the partition held no chance against the philosophy of Allama Iqbal, descendant of Kashmiri Brahmin converts to Islam, an ideologue for the two nation theory. This side story of lower caste Muslim opposition to the partition and its irrelevance, strikes a chord with rationals from lower castes who themselves have been rendered irrelevant with the rise of Hindutva. Nehru would have become Prime Minister anyway as a leader of the party that won majority but for Jinnah it was an entitlement similar to the feudals who formed the Muslim League.
- Jinnah's prejudice because of his Muslim identity could be seen in his personal front too. He was a typical example of those rotten Muslims who would marry women from other religions but wouldn't consent their women to marry into other religions. So, Jinnah carried many prejudices as a Muslim and also as a privileged caste Muslim. It's not just his ego but the prejudices because of his Muslim identity that led to the partition and deaths of millions. If he was really secular the question of identity would have never been there. It's no wonder that people with prejudices are very short-sighted and responsible for great calamities. The two-nation theory was the creation of entitled Muslims and Nehru had no stake in it. So, it's unfair to hold him responsible in any way for its implementation.
It's difficult to argue with the people who only view well known people as either heroes or villains or any thing in absolute goodness or absolute badness creating irrelevant moral dichotomy. But they of course consider themselves as practical persons.
Let us consider couple of allegations against Nehru.
1. Nehru was not secular as you think
- When they proudly say this something as a 'gotcha', sometimes you get the suspicion that the very radical and counter-intuitive nature of the claim itself might have convinced them the truthiness of it. Considering the unbridled hatred that the Hindutvites show for Nehru in this country, it of course is counter-intuitive. But it's not something people who do not worship Nehru but acknowledge his work towards secularization consider worthy of discussion.
2. Nehru was responsible for the partition not Jinnah.... I mean both are equally responsible.
- This comes with some unclear ideas about Indian-ness, nation-state and even democracy based on majority. Nehru becomes power hungry and Jinnah a rational man finding no place in Hindu dominated India (there are many other reasons for the two-nation theory which of course aren't important here)!
- For all the talk about Jinnah being secular, he certainly showed prejudices that he inherited because of his Muslim identity. He was in the league of atheist and communal Savarkar(though I don't think Jinnah was an atheist).
- When Jinnah joined Muslim League (which he found initially too communal), he endorsed a kind of people who always felt entitled to rule. This section of the Muslim community has always been enemy of an idea of democratic, egalitarian India. The results could be still seen in Pakistan which is still ruled by feudal elites. However, when there was a discussion on partitioning the country, there was another movement from under-privileged caste Muslims opposing it. Even though, they formed the majority in what is now nation-state India, their social standing and the stature of their leaders were insignificant. Their common-sense and rational argument against the partition held no chance against the philosophy of Allama Iqbal, descendant of Kashmiri Brahmin converts to Islam, an ideologue for the two nation theory. This side story of lower caste Muslim opposition to the partition and its irrelevance, strikes a chord with rationals from lower castes who themselves have been rendered irrelevant with the rise of Hindutva. Nehru would have become Prime Minister anyway as a leader of the party that won majority but for Jinnah it was an entitlement similar to the feudals who formed the Muslim League.
- Jinnah's prejudice because of his Muslim identity could be seen in his personal front too. He was a typical example of those rotten Muslims who would marry women from other religions but wouldn't consent their women to marry into other religions. So, Jinnah carried many prejudices as a Muslim and also as a privileged caste Muslim. It's not just his ego but the prejudices because of his Muslim identity that led to the partition and deaths of millions. If he was really secular the question of identity would have never been there. It's no wonder that people with prejudices are very short-sighted and responsible for great calamities. The two-nation theory was the creation of entitled Muslims and Nehru had no stake in it. So, it's unfair to hold him responsible in any way for its implementation.
Thursday, July 09, 2015
Random Thoughts - Hinduism and Hindutva
The way right-wing and liberal differences are unraveling in India, the worrying and scary part is we are probably becoming a highly divided society. Because of the right-wing rule, many of the "sensitive" topics are becoming commonplace. In those arguments, conservatives get into the 'Otto' mode.
Otto: You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead, asshole.
Archie: How very interesting. You're a true vulgarian, aren't you?
Otto: You are the vulgarian, you fuck.
A simple example;
A: Some libberral fascists think that Yoga shouldn't be taught.
B: Well, fascism is about imposing and controlling things or having general intolerance about dissenting voices. So, imposing Yoga is fascism. How opposing such imposition could be termed fascism?
A: No, you are a libberral fascist.
It appears as if a right-wing strategy to employ anti right-wing terminologies purely as abusive terms against liberals without any meaning or context.
Then if you try to reason with them to show the absurdities of such usage, they get into either
- whining mode;
A: Alright, you libberrals are always right...
or,
- combative mode;
A: Alright let's see who is going to be proved right...
or,
the Otto mode.
And here emerges the scary picture.
One can argue that both right-wingers and liberals have strong beliefs. However, it's the emotional nature of the arguments for right-wingers' self-righteous beliefs that makes any argument highly incompatible leaving bad taste among all parties.
And most worryingly, this is dividing people who should be natural allies because of their social situations and standings.
Otto: You pompous, stuck-up, snot-nosed, English, giant, twerp, scumbag, fuck-face, dickhead, asshole.
Archie: How very interesting. You're a true vulgarian, aren't you?
Otto: You are the vulgarian, you fuck.
A simple example;
A: Some libberral fascists think that Yoga shouldn't be taught.
B: Well, fascism is about imposing and controlling things or having general intolerance about dissenting voices. So, imposing Yoga is fascism. How opposing such imposition could be termed fascism?
A: No, you are a libberral fascist.
It appears as if a right-wing strategy to employ anti right-wing terminologies purely as abusive terms against liberals without any meaning or context.
Then if you try to reason with them to show the absurdities of such usage, they get into either
- whining mode;
A: Alright, you libberrals are always right...
or,
- combative mode;
A: Alright let's see who is going to be proved right...
or,
the Otto mode.
And here emerges the scary picture.
One can argue that both right-wingers and liberals have strong beliefs. However, it's the emotional nature of the arguments for right-wingers' self-righteous beliefs that makes any argument highly incompatible leaving bad taste among all parties.
And most worryingly, this is dividing people who should be natural allies because of their social situations and standings.
Thursday, June 11, 2015
The Just Individual - vi
Recently Ireland held a referendum on same-sex marriage. I had mixed feelings about it. It was heartening to see that majority endorsed it but at the same time I was troubled that a question of justice was put to the masses.
In most part of the world, the question of justice has changed from a majority desire to minority desire. In olden hierarchical days, with the rule of privileged minority, majority indeed suffered relatively. Feudals suffered because of the king, the middle class suffered because of the feudals and king and the working class suffered because of everyone. Therefore, justice was indeed part of the majority desire. However, this has changed with the advent of democracy.
Now the question of justice is mostly applicable to minorities of any identities. In such situations only people well versed with justice should decide upon it. I do understand our legal professionals could be found wanting when it comes to segregating justice from morality, however, I still believe it should be left to them and not to the majority population.
In most part of the world, the question of justice has changed from a majority desire to minority desire. In olden hierarchical days, with the rule of privileged minority, majority indeed suffered relatively. Feudals suffered because of the king, the middle class suffered because of the feudals and king and the working class suffered because of everyone. Therefore, justice was indeed part of the majority desire. However, this has changed with the advent of democracy.
Now the question of justice is mostly applicable to minorities of any identities. In such situations only people well versed with justice should decide upon it. I do understand our legal professionals could be found wanting when it comes to segregating justice from morality, however, I still believe it should be left to them and not to the majority population.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
OBCs and Affirmative Action - III
I came across the following words at ESPNcricinfo.
Now, I've hardly seen 'reverse discrimination' used in mainstream media. What discrimination are we talking about here exactly?
- Stereotyping an entire group
- Denying education to them
- Monopolising the land
- Claiming sexual privileges over their women
If reverse discrimination is true then we would have been talking on these points and not on individual isolated cases. In Jacques Rudolph's case, since Europeans have colonized so many countries, even he could have had a very successful career and life in other countries. In fact, it's true for any individuals in any society.
The phrase wouldn't have been used had they understood the implications of it. However, the sense of entitlement is so great in their privileged self that they can hardly ponder over it.
With an unbeaten 222 in his debut Test innings, Jacques Rudolph vindicated those who believed he had been a victim of reverse discrimination in South Africa.
Now, I've hardly seen 'reverse discrimination' used in mainstream media. What discrimination are we talking about here exactly?
- Stereotyping an entire group
- Denying education to them
- Monopolising the land
- Claiming sexual privileges over their women
If reverse discrimination is true then we would have been talking on these points and not on individual isolated cases. In Jacques Rudolph's case, since Europeans have colonized so many countries, even he could have had a very successful career and life in other countries. In fact, it's true for any individuals in any society.
The phrase wouldn't have been used had they understood the implications of it. However, the sense of entitlement is so great in their privileged self that they can hardly ponder over it.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Random Thoughts - Love_Lust
I don't agree with these homosexuals in heterosexual union opposing gay marriages. However, I do understand that it's possible to have a stable married life between homosexuals and heterosexuals. For one thing, unlike love, lust doesn't require another person for fulfillment. So, if a person is homosexual-heteroamoural, they can still have happy married life with an x-sexual and heteroamoural person.
Via Pharyngula
Via Pharyngula
Monday, April 13, 2015
How to use "Karma"?
If anybody understands 'Karma' in Indian caste system then they would be reasonably aware that it's an inhuman concept to justify the hereditary caste identities and can only be used negatively.
Good usage:
This comment at Salon:
Bad usage:
Satya Nadella of Microsoft:
Good usage:
This comment at Salon:
I am now quite sure that the trolls are going to proclaim that this is impossible, and that any research against their notion that fat people are lazy and gluttonous must be wrong. Because they are so smug and self-satisfied in their not-fat bodies. I just hope Karma is a real thing and they pay for their attitudes in their next life.
Bad usage:
Satya Nadella of Microsoft:
But take Nadella’s word for it: Good things come to women who don’t ask.“That might be one of the initial ‘super powers’ that, quite frankly, women [who] don’t ask for a raise have,” he added. “It’s good karma. It will come back.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)