Random thoughts - Positivity or Wishing Away?

In my opinion, symbolic solidarity should be community-driven events. The government shouldn’t get involved in it. People should show solidarity with the government by following the rules and regulations enforced by it to mitigate a situation. Any symbolism, they should be sceptical.

In any dire situation, you could be one of the three players. A person in power, who needs to make decisions and come up with plans to mitigate the situation. A person not directly affected by it but also has no say in anything. A person who is directly affected by the situation. I would consider the issue of manual scavenging as an example here. 

Mr Modi in his book(now withdrawn) ‘Karmayog’ wrote that manual scavenging could have been a “spiritual experience” for some of the Dalit castes. It is one of the positivity that the caste apologists routinely dispense of.

Manual scavenging is a problem. Wishing away the problem by viewing it in a positive light as a spiritual experience means different things to all those three players.

For a person in power, it’s just shirking responsibility under the guise of hoodwinking positivity. For an unaffected person, it’s a way to feel good about themself by reinterpreting the guilty feeling and imagining it non-existent. For the person affected, that kind of thought is unthinkable(the statement angered many Dalits) or if they are forced to accept that, it shows the total breakdown of their life or total hopelessness of their situation.

That is an extreme example. Normal people might not think in that way. But there are other situations, where people try to channelize positivity in the name of solidarity. But the difference, between the people who have power and the people who don’t, remains the same as in the above example. Italians showing regular solidarity during the crisis which is organized through social media messages or we holding candlelight vigils for our fallen soldiers within our own communities are like second or third group people with no actual power. But if a government does it, it’s a different matter.

We need to show solidarity with the government by being obedient to the laws it enacts to mitigate the situation but we need to be sceptical if the government itself indulges in symbolic solidarity. It’s basically shielding itself from any kind of criticism by equating its inadequacy even with all the power to the common people’s guilt feeling borne out of the helplessness or lack of power. It’s also very evident from the previous solidarity symbolism that people tend to misunderstand it and make the matters worse. The community-wise spontaneous solidarity gestures are still welcome as it doesn’t give additional work to government organizations to clear up other mess that might arise.

Reference:
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/pm-modis-views-manual-scavenging-have-changed-quite-bit-over-seven-years

Hindutva Movement and Muslim Population Growth - II

One can’t help but notice that all the fiasco surrounding Assam NRC disaster is the direct outcome of the exaggerated claims of the Vinod Rai height made by the Hindutvites against the Bangladeshi Muslims. According to the report, out of the 19 lakh illegal immigrants more than 50% are Hindus. This is probably not unknown to Bengalis themselves as I’ve heard one of them making a comment, a few years ago, that more Hindu Bengalis than Muslim Bengalis are migrating to India.

However, it’s undeniable that Muslim percentage in Assamese population shot up in recent decades. What we need is an analysis of this phenomenon. My previous post on this same subject, I mentioned how Hindutva movement turned Muslims further inward looking which resulted in a slower decline in the birthrate. I wonder whether that could be the case in Assam too.

A situation similar to Babri Mosque demolition happened in Assam a decade before that. The Nellie massacre of 1983 supposedly against the non-Assamese but which resulted in the massacre of thousands of Bengali Muslims. Now let us compare birthrates of Bengali Muslims in Bangladesh, West Bengal and Assam.
According to 2011 census:
Bangladesh: 2.3
West Bengal: 2.2
Assam: 3.1

While the Bengali Muslims in Bangladesh and West Bengal show similar birthrates, Assam’s Bengali Muslims have nearly an additional child in each family. What are the social factors responsible for this difference when all belong to the same linguistic/ethnic group? In my opinion, it’s the communalization of Assamese society. I wonder whether this new NRC-CAA lunacy will further slow down the declining Muslim population growth in India.

Reference:

Hindu-Muslim fertility differentials in India: District-level estimates from Census 2011

Race and Medicine - III

Batten disease girl given custom-made drug

One of the said goals of Population Genetics studies on human genetic genealogy was its application in medicine. The argument was the drugs can’t be universal as there are differences among humans. Finding out the distinct groups among humans and tailoring medicines to those individual groups was the supposed motivation.

Many suspected the whole exercise was a disguise to give scientific background to racism by creating categories of humans. Some of the scientists part of these studies were known to harbour racial prejudices. The studies energised White supremacists on the web.

The studies that started in the late nineties saw the emergence of bloggers and sites where individuals armed with statistical tools mined the studies and came up with their own theories. It was a rare mixture of racial prejudice and scientific neutrality. Only intellectual dishonesty required to reconcile them both as they struggled to come up with new definitions for the race.

The studies showed the differences but also the admixture and clinal variation which were a nightmare of racial purists. However, many still soldiers on instead of accepting loss of face. This group is a unique mixture of people with different ethnic background.

The pure racists weren’t exactly torchbearers of white brotherhood. They, in fact, put down southern and eastern Europeans dismissing them as less pure. So, there were eastern and southern Europeans trying to uphold their honour. Adding to the mix were Asians who thought they were too strong that they didn’t need white social justice warriors’ protection(as they thought). Their belief was that races were scientifically true but these white rationalists mask that truth to protect them from white racists. However, most of the western scientists opposed the classification purely for scientific reasons and as things turned out they were true throughout. I wouldn’t say, there weren’t non-scientists who opposed it purely from its effect on society. However, even their lack of scientific background doesn’t negate the fact that their rational thinking was far more nuanced than these Asian race warriors'. Sometimes, I feel Asian race warriors regress into argument from incredulity fallacy. They don't sound much different from theists who believe in god because they don't understand how things work. These Asian race warriors support racism because they don't understand the multiple concepts put forth by non-scientist humanists to oppose racism.

These individuals forget that it's not about them or their ability but it's about a dangerous idea and how it affects a group as a whole. Even if some groups have moved up, how racism affects more vulnerable smaller groups. Sometimes the groups that were at the receiving end of the prejudices in the past, now with their new political and social power, perpetuating it on other groups while forgetting the fact that they could move up in the first place because mainstream society rejected the idea legally.

A similar behavioural pattern could be observed among underprivileged castes with their caste pride in Indian society. Also, some of the OBC individuals’ opposition to social justice initiatives.

Coming back to the original topic of this post, there were other scientists who were sceptical about the medical utility of these studies. In their opinion, if anything, medicine has to be individualised(N-to-one). Group medicine will always have the same drawbacks of universal medicine.

I’ve seen individuals being turned off by the whole field of modern medicine(which they then start calling using that abusive term, “allopathy”) as some times drugs don’t work on them. These aren’t Hindutva/right-wing nuts. It would be nice if N-to-one can help these small percentage of the population at a reasonable cost. Their frustration and pain sometimes can have a greater influence on society, helping the quacks along the way.

Related:
https://bantwal.blogspot.com/2008/07/human-genetics-and-racial-categories.html

Origin of the Caste System - I

According to a new study on an IVC ancient DNA, there was no European component in the genetic makeup of the Rakhigarhi individual dated around 2800-2300 BCE. The Steppe component appeared 2000-1500 BCE onwards. During this period, Indus Valley Civilization was in total decline.

According to the authors, this IVC component is still the biggest among Indians. So, evidently, after the decline of the IVC, the people still survived. What would have been their condition? Most likely their society might have been in a disarray. There would have been no proper political structure and there might have been chaos. This would have been an ideal time for an invading group to impose itself politically and culturally on a people who had lost a unifying identity and political leadership. A similar situation one might observe throughout our history.

What we observe in the early stage of the caste system is the dominance of Indo-European deities. However, in due course, those deities became minor. The new dominant ones like Shiva and Vishnu appear to be an assimilation of native traditions with the Vedic tradition but within the caste structure. In my opinion, there could have been two exclusive phases in the interaction between Indo-Europeans and the IVC people.

- Broken IVC people enabling the IEs to impose their culture and create a caste system with themselves in the highest position

- Re-emergence native traditions which were then assimilated with the Vedic culture. However, without changing the caste hierarchy (though only Brahmins matter)

We can observe that this became a template for Brahmins wherever they migrated in the subcontinent - keep the caste hierarchy and assimilate the native traditions with the Vedic culture.

The only way to describe a situation where outsiders imposed their culture on the natives and kept themselves at the top of the hierarchy is "invasion".

mujh se pehli si mohabbat na maang - by Faiz Ahmed Faiz

Don’t ask me for the love of the years gone...

Don’t ask me for the love of the years gone...

I thought you were the lone light in this world,

With you, no sorrow of the world would ever touch me.

Your face was what gives nature her color,

And what is there to seek that I don’t find in your eyes…

And what is there to seek that I don’t find in your eyes!

If you are with me, it didn't matter if fortune frowns...

But I never for once thought this is where we come...

Countless centuries of dark cruel magic

woven in rich elaborate silk,
Flesh sold in the dark alleys everywhere,

Bodies draped in dust, bathed in blood,

My eyes turn to this now and I cannot help...

Even now your beauty touches my heart but I cannot help!

There are many other sorrows in this world besides love…

There are many other ways to find respite besides love…

Don’t ask me for the love of the years gone...

Don’t ask me for the love of the years gone...

Hindutva Movement and Muslim Population Growth - I

I've read two different analyses on the social impact of Babri Masjid demolition by the BJP on Indian Muslims. I wouldn't say they are opposite views as both could be true under certain conditions. I would call them the Bleak view and the Sunny view.

According to the Bleak view:
By late 80s Muslims were slowly opening up to mainstream India. They had started showing great interest in education. But Babri Masjid demolition in 1992 changed all that. They again became inward-looking and more conservative.

According to the Sunny view:
Muslims felt betrayed and disillusioned with their leaders. They started questioning them, their backwardness and poverty and tried to find new ways to achieve progress.

With the Sunny view, I would guess, Muslims would have become more mainstream and with the Bleak view, they should have regressed further.

I wanted to check if there was any measure for these two views.

In my opinion, this should reflect in their population growth. Any progress in a group should reflect in their women's extended education, later marriage and smaller family size.

To observe this, I needed to compare the population growth of Indian Muslims relative to other groups with a similar background but which weren't exposed to majoritarian communalism. The Indian Muslims who weren't exposed to Hindu communalism were Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Even though, both Pakistan and Bangladesh have non-Muslim minorities, I would consider them as 100% Muslim as the Muslim population make up nearly 90% or more in those regions. Even otherwise, it wouldn't make much of a difference as Muslim population growth has always been higher than the Hindu population growth.

Here is their population in absolute numbers (million):

	India(Muslims)	Pakistan	Bangladesh
1981	80.3	91	89.9
1991	106.7	122.2	111.5
2001	138.2	156.8	130.5
2011	172.2	187.3	152.5

Pakistan and Bangladesh had similar population size in 1981 whereas Indian Muslims population was 10million(1 crore) smaller in size compared to these two countries. 

The percentage growth in each decade would be:

	I	P	B
81-91	33%	34%	24%
91-01	30%	28%	17%
01-11	25%	19%	17%

As I understand, until the 70s-80s, the population growth of all these countries increased as the maternal and infant mortality reduced without the corresponding decrease in fertility rate. So, it's not surprising that the decade of 1981-91 shows very high growth rate. Relatively, while Indian Muslims and Pakistanis show similar growth, Bangladeshis show remarkably lower growth. The growth starts slowing down in the decades following that.

Our interest is in the decades after 1991, when the Hindutva movement reached its pinnacle with the destruction of the Babri Masjid. Here, we see some surprising results. Let's consider the drop in population growth rate in all three regions.

	I	P	B
'91-'01	-10%	-17%	-29%
'01-'11	-17%	-31%	-1%

Bangladesh shows dramatic drop between the decade of 81 and the decade of 91. Pakistan comes next. We need to remember while Bangladesh had continued the trend, Pakistan with a higher growth rate than India, showed a relatively greater drop. This trend continued in the decade after that as well. However, it appears Bangladesh growth rate drop has stabilized. Even though Pakistan shows a bigger drop percentage-wise, it still has the biggest Muslim population because of its higher starting number. By 2001, Indian Muslims had overtaken Bangladeshi Muslims in sheer numbers though they had started with a smaller size.

Does this say anything? 

In my opinion, it shows the Bleak view is correct. Indian Muslims became more inward-looking and conservative. Pakistan with its fundamentalist outlook would have had higher population growth whatever might be the social situation. But the Indian outlook wasn't the same. However, let's consider that all Indian Muslims have the typical outlook of Pakistanis. In this case, let's consider the Indian Muslim population in absolute numbers with Pakistani decadal percentage growth.

Pessimistic case scenario:

2001	136.911293
2011	163.542635

That's in 2011, by pessimistic estimation, the Indian Muslim population would have been 9 million (90 lakh) smaller than the actual population(See above). 

Let's take Bangladesh as the best case, and consider Indian Muslims having the typical outlook of Bangladeshi Muslims. Then the population growth in absolute numbers would be:

Best case scenario:

2001 124.8820628

2011 145.9349776

In the best case scenario, there would have been 26 million (2.6 crores)fewer Muslims in India by 2011.

But in my opinion, the better model would be that the Indian Muslim outlook is somewhere between the best case and the pessimistic case. I would consider all Hindi speaking Muslims making nearly 75% of the Indian Muslim population as culturally closer to Pakistanis and the rest to Bangladeshis. So, with 0.75P + 0.25B, the decadal growth and the absolute numbers would be:

2001 25%	133.904
2011 19%	159.0822

The Indian Muslim population would have been 13 million(1.3 crores) smaller in 2011 than the actual number.

What we need to observe here is that the Indian Muslim population increased more than the pessimistic expectation in the decades after 1991.

This affirmation of the Bleak view gives an ironical twist to the Hindutva movement's goals. They typically try to polarize the population by invoking the bogey of Muslim population growth and how it's going to make Hindus a minority in India. However, the BJP with its core Hindutva ideology might have indirectly responsible for an additional 10 million Muslim population in India. The BJP also wants to project itself as a liberator of Indian Muslim women by implementing the Uniform Civil Code. But with their communal movements, they might have ruined the dreams of many Muslim women by indirectly forcing them to stop education, marry early and have more children. 

OBC generations

The so-called generation epithets bestowed in the West are, probably, not applicable to Indians. Also, there couldn't be a single characterization of the generations within India too considering the gulf in the cultural and social milieu in which different castes live. Here I venture out to characterize only the OBCs as I've lived their experiences.

I broadly classify them into two generations: Generation E and Generation F.

Generation E:
- E stands for Enlightened
- From 1900 to 1960
- Less religious to atheists: Many educated ones with direct experience with the caste system clearly saw how religion was used to suppress them with the priests at the top of the hierarchy. The advancements in medicine helped them to overcome the fear of diseases and helplessness with fertility or reproduction.
- They moved to diverse fields - from science to arts - and mostly lost their caste specific occupations
- Socialism/communism gave them a hope for a new identity
- Many educated ones were radical and rational in their outlook and had a voice in the communities
- Men were on an average more educated than women: Men ranged from illiterates to highly educated and women from illiterates to under-educated.
- Mostly poor to middle class
- Politically irrelevant

Generation F:
- F stands for Fucked-up
- From 1960 to 2020
- Religious nuts to Communal atheists: No longer experience overt caste discrimination. Muslim hatred is the hallmark of this generation which makes them blind to new Brahmanical indoctrination in the form of Hindutva. The new fears in the form of educational attainment and job security substituted the old fears of diseases and fertility and gods and priests again got their place back.
- Most of this generation entered professional fields and one can't find any diversity among them
- The economic failure of socialism/communism makes it no longer appealing and right-wing Hindutva fills the vacuum
- The dominant voices in the communities are from the people with extreme religiosity and bigotry
- Women are on an average more educated than men. Even the educated men can't scale up to the levels attained by the generation E, because of higher competition and narrowness of their opted fields
- Mostly middle class
- Politically relevant

If India wasn't partitioned

National
1. India might have still lost the 1962 war
2. The civilian democracy would have still survived
3. The nation would have become strongly federal

International
1. The USA would have found it difficult to support Afghan Mujahideen
2. The communist dictatorship in Afghanistan would have survived
3. The Soviet Union would have lingered bit longer
4. The Taliban would have never been created
5. The 9/11 might not have happened
6. The ISIS wouldn't have been there

Social
1. Hindutva wouldn't have grown so strong
2. The Babri Masjid would have survived

3. Linguistic faultlines would have been exacerbated

4. The Muslim birthrate would have come down quicker. The present-day Pakistan region  would have had a smaller population than present-day Bangladesh region
5. Conversions to Christianity and Islam from the caste system would have been higher
6. Many regions with 30% Muslim population would have been close to 50% because of migrations and conversions
7. There would have been stronger OBC and Dalit movements

About prayers

I guess one could distinguish between acceptable prayers and unacceptable prayers as one would do between acceptable bribery and unacceptable bribery.

Here prayer is for the future gains or thanking the deity for any gains.

Acceptable:
1. sickness
2. fertility
3. impending fatal danger
4. clearing an exam

Unacceptable:
1. surviving an accident in which many others perished
2. for jobs
3. for better grades
4. more money

Basically, anything where the believer is the only beneficiary is acceptable, however, in situations where it appears as if god/s has/ve to take sides praying is unacceptable. One shouldn't put limits on gods for the greater good of the society.

Of human behaviour

There is a thinking that human society progressively improves. But the present situation where the right-wing is in ascendence makes one wonder. Many Sci-Fi TV serials or movies show that the basic human nature is consistent and never transcend even after amazing technological innovations. So, our imagined future as depicted in Science Fiction or the reality where the right-wing is getting away with atrocious statements and deeds tells otherwise. I wonder whether we need to disassociate human society from human nature.

I may not be able to define basic human nature. I'll put them into the following categories.
1. Humans with criminal tendencies(or selfish streak) who can be part of all the classes and who can harm the society for their benefit
2. Humans in survival mode who probably form most of the lower and middle class and probably majority women, and who generally maintain the status-quo though always under the impression that they are doing good
3. Humans defined by the puritanical definition of "good", can be anyone from an Islamic fundamentalist to a Vegan activist, who can bring radical changes to the society by generally suffocating it
4. Humans with individualistic streak who can be part of all the classes, who are always a positive influence on the society but lack the resources and mindset to sustain it

Typically, the nature of the sedentary human society was decided by the males from the groups (1) and (3) and sustained by the conflict-weary group (2). This is known as patriarchal or feudal society. Now, most of the societies have become liberal or culturally socialist societies. This was achieved by the coming together of groups (4) and (2).

But what we can observe that group (2) isn't a reliable group. Their survival instincts can be manipulated easily. As the oppression by the feudal society is a thing of past, they can no longer associate inhumanity with the patriarchal ideas. This has allowed groups (1) and (3) to regain power.

However, the laws of the society have been successfully changed for the benefit of the majority in many cases during the socialist interlude. Now, the new feudal power can oppress minority populations(which itself can be divided into all those four groups) while maintaining group (2)'s sense of security.

Basically, the new laws are responsible for the continuous evolution of the society in a positive direction. However, majority humans within that have continued to be in the same mental attitude as their forefathers.