Posts
As even the mere viewers of cricket know very well, it is not only the unmanageably brilliant balls but relatively easy ones with misleading bowling action that get many a batsman out. Darling B delivered one such which requires time even for the umpire to take some time to lift his finger. Just as the clueless Batsman leaves for the pavilion even without realizing how it happened, let me offer my explanation. But, thanks again B for making me read a couple or so of Dan Brown's novels once so that I can play Professor Longdon here to crack the coded insults he showers on me.
The serious charge is that I have a "secret affair with Postmodern literature." Even more damagingly, that "most of the Marxists have a tendency of being secret admirers of post-modern eclectics. Even as they project themselves that they are reading `dry’ Marxists commentaries and writings and keep talking about them in open, the unquestionable source of pleasure or the scholastic libido is achieved only in post-modern school of writings." Now, it is more than one allegation. A series, if you like. Whether or not they are coherent is, for time being, I leave out. I address each of them as if they are separate ones. Firstly, it assumes that only post-modernism is eclectic while Marxists are not so and should not be so. Second is I have an unacknowledged affair with Post modern literature. And, thirdly, that all Marxists are like this. I reject all these as baseless.
Eclecticism
Eclecticism means gathering up ideas, propositions and formulations from different philosophies, theories without a regard for, in violation of, the need for coherence. Eclecticism involves the sin of two levels of incoherence. First is, the ideas, concepts, and elements borrowed from different theories make sense only in their parent systems and not outside of them. Second is, thus gathered elements do not fit in with each other. Problems arising from any or both of these could result in, or results of, eclecticism. I shall argue in a moment why Marxism itself is eclecticism and that eclecticism is a good thing.
Before "deconstructing" the very idea of eclecticism, let me point to the slight of hand B performs here. It is true that eclecticism involves borrowing elements from different theories. But, not all borrowing from different sources and recombining them becomes automatically eclectic. The casteist understanding of eclecticism is: simply assuming that if a concept originally from a particular theory it should belong to it and can't be transferred to other theories. I called this illusion(when believed) or tyranny( when imposed) 'casteist' because, in Hinduism you have to inescapably remain in the caste you were born in. Well, I am for eclecticism, here. I am for cross-fertilisation of persons as well as ideas. In fact, this analysis is itself an example of eclecticism. I am using the model of caste system to explain knowledge production.
Marxism has multiple sources
Let's take Marx as example. It is well-known that he derived and recombined 3 utterly unconnected intellectual traditions: British classical economics, German Idealist philosophy and French Socialism. And, of course, added something of his own and reprocessed the whole thing. I think it is enough to establish that Marxism is fundamentally eclectic(in B's mislead and misleading sense), like any other meaningful body of knowledge. Marxism is not alone. It is one thing come up with hot potch of things cut out of diverse sources and an entirely different matter to forge a meaningful system from multiple sources. The point about eclecticism is coherence. B mistakes it for plurality.
Let me give one more example from Marxism. Hegle is very important for Marxism, Marx and Engels respected him more than any thinker. As you know, Hegel is an idealist. His system is known to be the most elaborate, therefore very complex, philosophical system. In that system, as Hegel and his interpreters never tired of telling us, everything is connected with everything else. Even his different books are said to be different stages or explanations of a single system and not genuinely self-contained books. What is more, Hegel himself considered all previous philosophies, from the Greeks to his time, were different stages and aspects of a single onward march of philosophy, he asserted, that culminates in his philosophy and ends there. Hegel's interpreters keep telling us that to understand Hegel, it is crucial that each element in it is a part of the whole system, whose full meaning is clear only in retrospect, in the light of the totality. Considering this, it appears that Hegel is the most unlikely philosopher to be selectively appropriated. You have to take all of it or no part of it.
Now, what did Engels say about Hegel, who in turn was a reactionary and thought the Prussian monarchy was the ultimate thing to happen in the history of humanity?
Engels said, Hegel's SYSTEM was bad but METHOD was revolutionary and it was appropriated by Marxism. Well, to keep jargon to a minimum and not to overreach myself, given my very basic and crude knowledge of Hegel, I tried to use journalistic simplifications than philosophically accurate vocabulary or explanation. But, I hope this is enough to demonstrate that Marxism takes many things from other systems and theories and that there are workable ways of picking and choosing. If this is what B wants to tell us eclecticism, yes Marxism is eclectic and I am a Marxist.
And, so are every system of knowledge. Even cultural or religious sysytems which are supposed to be less open to external influences and known for their attempts to remain 'pure,' can be shown to be made up of borrowing from other pools.
Another danger with B's idea of self-containing and closed nature of theories and systems is that it covers up one thing common to all knowledge systems: they don't remain static. They keep adding new things and very often it involves shedding old ones. Very often, old things are dumped even before new ones come. Revivals and reconfigurations are not new. More over, there is this thing called paradigm shift- incidentally I don't know of any other word which fascinated B more than this this. It's altogether a different model to explain the development of knowledge. It is not necessary for me to explain to B that one of the features of this idea of paradigm shift is that, in science, elements( individual verified facts) increasingly come in conflict with the system they belong to, until it becomes a crisis, which eventually results in and resolved by, replacing the system with a new paradigm that arranges the elements in much coherent fashion. And, how is the better paradigm chosen? From among the competing paradigms(read systems)!
So much for B's theory of (anti) eclecticism! It is even worse than Hindu idea of marriage with its insistence on permanent, exclusive faithfulness. What he is advocating is similar to obligatory incest and incest alone.
Post-Modernism and Post-Structuralism
Let's go back to his charge. My alleged clandestine affair with post-modernism loses most of its power if the crucial crime of being eclectic is withdrawn. But, still, lets consider being post modernist is itself is a wrong thing. Here, I must admit that B is right. It is wrong to be a post modernist though each of us have a right to be so. But, the only weakness of B's allegation now is that I am not a postmodernist secretly or openly. The only hint B provides us as to his idea of post modernism is the mention of Derrida{I am here using 3 different things- Postmodernism, Post-modernism and postmodernism as if they are interchangeable. I must confess that I am not sure what exactly is the difference the punctuation or different adjectivisations(Postmdoernism/Postmodernity) mean. To vulgarise things a bit to the point of distortion, there is always a danger of being asked by a postmodernists why should anything and everything should mean something or the other? Probably, B will explain to us in detail in his response to this humble submission}.
Derrida is, in his own words, NOT a postmodernist. At any rate, he said whatever he said was in a certain Marxist spirit! Derrida's denial of being a postmodernist or his espousing of Marxism could well be disputed. Though, I don't. I emphasis it. However, self-descriptions are not necessarily be accepted as the final word. Just think of the arguably 20th century's greatest and most famous positivist philosopher Karl Popper. He lamented, in vain, that he was not only a non-positivist but one who waged a life-long fight against positivism!!
Here again, one crucial distinction is to be made. There are a variety of thinkers, not necessarily in agreement with each other and frequently more disputed or disregarded each other's views than thought of themselves being partners of a common intellectual project, whose new ways of doing philosophy and theory came to be known as Post-Structuralism. This label too was not liked by most of those who practiced those new ways of thinking. But, it was broad and loose enough a title. It simply means, an intellectual attitude which depends on, and also departs from, "structuralism." Though such dependency can be defined relatively easily, not least because structuralism is mostly a clearly defined set of concepts and also amenable to easily organizable corpus of key terms. But, "departure" is a different ball game altogether. It can, and indeed did, vary considerably. Even then, the new sensibilities arising from the work of these diverse thinkers could still be clubbed and called Post-Structuralism without violating the rule of keeping each individual work in its uniqueness and integrity and still managing to see the common concern of the thinkers involved and thinking they inspired. All of it is a matter of thinking while the post-modernism is a political attitude and a set of arguments against other political philosophies and also a word commonly given to a range of doing and speaking about politics. To summarize, somewhat crudely, while Post-Structuralism is a movement in philosophy, post-modernism is mobilizing it for doing (or not doing) politics. Conflating them is what you call catagorical mistake.
Of course, some forms of art and literature too are called postmodernist. For example, Sahriar Mandanipour's famous novel is known as post-modern novel. B, knowingly or unknowingly, conflating these distinctions.
But B's style seems to be one full of cryptic allusion than clear illustration.
He was trying to get back at me in a more cryptic and convoluted way than in which I arguably mocked him. If my nastiness lies in attacking Raymond Williams, whose books B was in possession of, His counter-offensive lies in insulting me exactly the way Eagleton was insulted recently by Zizek. B, since he is B, knows that insinuations rather than incendiary remarks would hurt his targets.
Eagleton was known as the most famous, influential and formidable enemy of postmodernism. The terror- ya, that is the word- created by Terry Eagleton among the post-modernists is stuff of legend. He ripped the post-modernists apart while leaving the readers in stitches. This terror was unleashed not by means of cruelty but through clarity. Let me tell you one anecdote.
There used to be a Professor in EFLU(previously CIEFL) who was considered by a portion of her students as a big academician. She built that reputation over a period of 3 decades of untiring work- not of scholarship but of scheming, as the gossip goes. From my experience, I testify that she could say the most baseless and banal things or outright lies in the most confident of the tones. I couldn't imagine even Einstein explaining his discovery so confidently as this Professor saying things as outrageous as this one: John Calvin invented conscience- not the concept, the conscience itself! Human beings did not have conscience before Calvin invented it!!
I am not the kind to rise my voice too frequently in the class room (though surely being moron enouch to turn blogs into such places, B would mock me) and definitely not the type to waste words discussing with such fake intellectuals, I did not in the least interested in debating with her. But, a sweet idiot of a classmate really caused immense discomfort to her and also to me. He brought one of Terry Eagleton's books to the class room itself. I forewarned that chap not to discuss that book with her while giving it or recommending it to him.
That fool brought the bomb stright to the class room and even asked unsuspecting me to sit next to him on the fist bench and opened it and held it in such a way as to catch her attention. Terry Eagleton's book caught, not her attention but herself off guard. It was pretty visible to the whole class that she was not in her element that day. She concluded the class slightly early and did not waste time to stop at our bench and made such a face at the book. As soon as this fool realized that the Professor didn't see it as very funny, out of confusion than out of malice, though, told her that I gave that book to him. Her look to me was what Frank Kohler might have given to the cops when he was captured, in Gourvitch's A Cold Case.
And, if you want to see the taste of a bit of Eagleton: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v21/n10/terry-eagleton/in-the-gaudy-supermarket
or, in the same journal: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching
This much of talking about Eagleton may sound unwarranted when it was me who brought him into this debate whose role should be - if I have any decency expected of honorable bloggers which surely I am not - at the most be one of a "vanishing mediator." Because obviously, nothing in the first bout of this exchange itself called for his presence. It is favouritism, B smacks his lips in annoyance, when he thinks of it, I am sure. But, my friend B is no less malicious in making use of such innocent presence of Eagleton against me. And, he does so with tongue in cheek seriousness and even with a pose of a wounded saint.
It was Zizek, whom B met recently while I failed to do so, who humiliated his friend Eagleton by calling him as unconscious postmodernist. Lifting that line straight from Zizek(another of my idols) to abuse me is an extraordinary feat of multiple benefits for B.
If I disparaged Williams to annoy B, he could do so by doing the same to me, only with multiplied effects, by invoking Eagleton's humbling in his own frind Zizek's hands.
Consider: B knows very well that Eagleton doesn't have qualms to admit that he did nothing other than rediscovering, reinstating Williams and becoming a readable Williams for our times and guarding the discipline Williams helped founding -Cultural Studies- from the dumbing down effects, unMarxian twists by fakes of the kind I described earlier.
And, recently I gave him a lecture he did not ask- greatness of Derrida.Not that I know much about Derrida. But, lecturing happens not when you know something but when you feel that the listener doesn't know about it. It is an inexorable law of nature. Expecting otherwise is like blaming the naughty kid who fell from the top of the dining table when he tried to dance on it. You can't blame a poor kid for the law of gravity.
Finally, he picks a case of one icon of mine humiliating another and invokes it without actually mentioning their names and apparently directs a similar charge at me. As if to prevent the possibility of these associations being taken as accidental, he warns us in advance of the 'nuance' in which only the writer(god) and the stupid B can decipher it in entirety."
It is like blaming god for forcing poor devotees to offer Prasadam. As if god is the one who eats it. But, the worst of all is his description of himself as "poor" just before rendering my situation "poorer" by forcing me to first decoding and then disputing his cryptic insults. It is worse than the state of a battered victim having to undress himself in public to establish the severity of wounds inflicted.
Well, let me take a break. I hope to resume my response soon.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Monday, February 15, 2010
Real Face Of Chidambaram
This heart-wrenching and conscience-shaking story by Priyanka Borpujari ( http://www.nowpublic.com/world/youngest-maoist-nabbed) should be read on the the original website. It has a shocking photograph. I am unable to get the photograph onto this blog. I could manage to paste the text alone here but this "story" must be read along with the photo and deserves to be given widest possible circulation and discussion.
Check out the murderous rage on his face!
Check out the hand that has bludgeoned many heads!
Check out the strained forehead that explain his years committed to bloodshed!
When Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh referred to Maoists as being the “single largest threat to the nation”, did he mean this child, whose fingers were brutally chopped off while his family was massacred?
Even before this 'Maoist' could be sent in for a narco-analysis, let's understand where he comes from.
Name: Madvi Mukesh
Age: Two years old
Tribe: Muria
Residence: Gompad village, police station Konta, district Dantewada (on the Chhattisgarh-Andhra Pradesh border)
Family: Maternal grandfather Madvi Barjar (50) – dead; grandmother Madvi Subhi (45) – dead; mother Kartam Kunni (20) – dead; maternal aunt Madi Mooti (8) – dead; father (21).
Mukesh was with his family on the morning of October 1, 2009, when several men wearing military fatigues – SPOs (special police officers), police and other security forces – pointed their guns at these 'Maoists' and shot at them. Mukesh's neigbours were killed – Muchaki Handa, Markam Deva, Tomra Mutta, newly-married couple Soyma Subba and Soyam Jogi.
Mukesh's family was found to be crying near a pool of blood, oozing from the chopped body of his aunt. His wails were uncontrollable – did he understand the meaning of the loss of his family, or was it because his three fingers were chopped during the carnage that wiped out his family?
His 'Maoist' father wasn't at home at that time and so he was saved.
Houses were burnt down. Paddy, pulses, brass pots, poultry and cash were taken away. In all, the villagers found that 10 of their people were dead. Some youths were missing. Mukesh Madvi, the 'Maoist', disappeared into the jungles with his father.
About 200 kms north of Gompad, news about an encounter was being circulated in the press. Operation Green Hunt had officially begun on October 1, 2009, and it was declared that some Maoists were killed near the Andhra Pradesh border. Journalists were told that the bodies of the Maoists were disposed off by the villagers.
On January 3, 2010, when I met Amresh Mishra, Superintendent of Police (SP) of Dantewada, and had asked him about the Gompad massacre, he denied of such an incidence. “There was only a firing from both the sides. There was no casualty; only some explosives were found.”
January 7, 2010, would have been the day when, like Mukesh, many other 'Maoists' would have come to Dantewada for a Jan Sunwai (public hearing), so that they could put forth their case. Home Minister P Chidambaram had promised Himanshu Kumar of Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, who had planned the Jan Sunwai, that he would be present to hear the woes of the people. However, the Governor of Chhattisgarh ESL Narasimhan prevented the Home Minister from making that visit. The Jan Sunwai was bound to have opened a can of worms before the national media, if the Home Minister had attended the meeting.
Mukesh did arrive for the Jan Sunwai along with his father, and several other optimists, on January 5. They were about 25 of them. No sooner did they arrive at Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, they were surrounded by SPOs. About 30 minutes later, they were all packed into three Boleros which bore no number plates.
It has been 10 days since those 'Maoists' were taken to an undisclosed location and there has been no news about them.
So that is the government's definition of a 'Maoist', whom I encountered personally – the tribal carrying logs of firewood who starts walking through jungles since 3 am, and reaches the nearest town by 7 am, to sell the firewood for Rs 60 (which is a little more than US $1 - and that's his daily earning). The tribal who walks about 100 miles to reach the police station, to complain that the forces stationed in his village killed the only hen that he had, is a Maoist for the government. The two-year-old Suresh is a Maoist for the government.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/youngest-maoist-nabbed
Check out the murderous rage on his face!
Check out the hand that has bludgeoned many heads!
Check out the strained forehead that explain his years committed to bloodshed!
When Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh referred to Maoists as being the “single largest threat to the nation”, did he mean this child, whose fingers were brutally chopped off while his family was massacred?
Even before this 'Maoist' could be sent in for a narco-analysis, let's understand where he comes from.
Name: Madvi Mukesh
Age: Two years old
Tribe: Muria
Residence: Gompad village, police station Konta, district Dantewada (on the Chhattisgarh-Andhra Pradesh border)
Family: Maternal grandfather Madvi Barjar (50) – dead; grandmother Madvi Subhi (45) – dead; mother Kartam Kunni (20) – dead; maternal aunt Madi Mooti (8) – dead; father (21).
Mukesh was with his family on the morning of October 1, 2009, when several men wearing military fatigues – SPOs (special police officers), police and other security forces – pointed their guns at these 'Maoists' and shot at them. Mukesh's neigbours were killed – Muchaki Handa, Markam Deva, Tomra Mutta, newly-married couple Soyma Subba and Soyam Jogi.
Mukesh's family was found to be crying near a pool of blood, oozing from the chopped body of his aunt. His wails were uncontrollable – did he understand the meaning of the loss of his family, or was it because his three fingers were chopped during the carnage that wiped out his family?
His 'Maoist' father wasn't at home at that time and so he was saved.
Houses were burnt down. Paddy, pulses, brass pots, poultry and cash were taken away. In all, the villagers found that 10 of their people were dead. Some youths were missing. Mukesh Madvi, the 'Maoist', disappeared into the jungles with his father.
About 200 kms north of Gompad, news about an encounter was being circulated in the press. Operation Green Hunt had officially begun on October 1, 2009, and it was declared that some Maoists were killed near the Andhra Pradesh border. Journalists were told that the bodies of the Maoists were disposed off by the villagers.
On January 3, 2010, when I met Amresh Mishra, Superintendent of Police (SP) of Dantewada, and had asked him about the Gompad massacre, he denied of such an incidence. “There was only a firing from both the sides. There was no casualty; only some explosives were found.”
January 7, 2010, would have been the day when, like Mukesh, many other 'Maoists' would have come to Dantewada for a Jan Sunwai (public hearing), so that they could put forth their case. Home Minister P Chidambaram had promised Himanshu Kumar of Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, who had planned the Jan Sunwai, that he would be present to hear the woes of the people. However, the Governor of Chhattisgarh ESL Narasimhan prevented the Home Minister from making that visit. The Jan Sunwai was bound to have opened a can of worms before the national media, if the Home Minister had attended the meeting.
Mukesh did arrive for the Jan Sunwai along with his father, and several other optimists, on January 5. They were about 25 of them. No sooner did they arrive at Vanvasi Chetna Ashram, they were surrounded by SPOs. About 30 minutes later, they were all packed into three Boleros which bore no number plates.
It has been 10 days since those 'Maoists' were taken to an undisclosed location and there has been no news about them.
So that is the government's definition of a 'Maoist', whom I encountered personally – the tribal carrying logs of firewood who starts walking through jungles since 3 am, and reaches the nearest town by 7 am, to sell the firewood for Rs 60 (which is a little more than US $1 - and that's his daily earning). The tribal who walks about 100 miles to reach the police station, to complain that the forces stationed in his village killed the only hen that he had, is a Maoist for the government. The two-year-old Suresh is a Maoist for the government.
http://www.nowpublic.com/world/youngest-maoist-nabbed
If you are a Muslim, you are not safe even if you are a journalist
It is good to see the journalists of Mangalore- among whom the warrior-reporter Sudipto Mondal- come on to streets asking for rights and denouncing injustices.
When did you last hear journalists on street in the BJP-ruled States?
It is inspiring and hopes-sustaining to see our sisters and brothers doing it. They deserve our greatest solidarity and support. Rahim was just standing at the bus stop waiting for his bus. As soon as he said his name was Rahim the sub-inspector thought he could just arrest him without much further thinking. Had the reporter been a Hindu it would have ended in apologies, or even bonhomie, as soon as he reveals that he was reporter.
What a shame!
It is not difficult to understand why the Congress not doing anything against these Criminal Against Humanity, leaders and cadre of BJP, ShivaSena. But, why even the Left and Secular forces don't demand such things is beyond comprehension. The left is concerned only with avoiding the possibility of their State government's being dismissed by the Centre. It principally opposes imposition of the President's rule anywhere no matter what. Nor does it entertain any idea of handing over the Shiva Sena, Ram Sena and BJP and RSS criminals( Pichikukkalu, in Yogendra Kalavalapalle's unimprovable description) to International Criminal Court.
When will the Liberals( does anybody except Ramachandra Guha seriously believe that such a catagory exists?) and the Left will realise that no fascist force ever was defeated, after securing power, by forces from within?
When did you last hear journalists on street in the BJP-ruled States?
It is inspiring and hopes-sustaining to see our sisters and brothers doing it. They deserve our greatest solidarity and support. Rahim was just standing at the bus stop waiting for his bus. As soon as he said his name was Rahim the sub-inspector thought he could just arrest him without much further thinking. Had the reporter been a Hindu it would have ended in apologies, or even bonhomie, as soon as he reveals that he was reporter.
What a shame!
It is not difficult to understand why the Congress not doing anything against these Criminal Against Humanity, leaders and cadre of BJP, ShivaSena. But, why even the Left and Secular forces don't demand such things is beyond comprehension. The left is concerned only with avoiding the possibility of their State government's being dismissed by the Centre. It principally opposes imposition of the President's rule anywhere no matter what. Nor does it entertain any idea of handing over the Shiva Sena, Ram Sena and BJP and RSS criminals( Pichikukkalu, in Yogendra Kalavalapalle's unimprovable description) to International Criminal Court.
When will the Liberals( does anybody except Ramachandra Guha seriously believe that such a catagory exists?) and the Left will realise that no fascist force ever was defeated, after securing power, by forces from within?
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Erich Fried's Was es ist?
What it is
It is nonsense
says reason
It is what it is
says love
It is misfortune
says calculation
It is nothing but pain
says fear
It is hopeless
says insight
It is what it is
says love
It is ridiculous
says pride
It is careless
says caution
It is impossible
says experience
It is what it is
says love
(translation M. Kaldenbach)
This is its much beautiful original, without offense to Kaldenbach's beautiful rendering:
Was es ist
Es ist Unsinn
sagt die Vernunft
Es ist was es ist
sagt die Liebe
Es ist Unglück
sagt die Berechnung
Es ist nichts als Schmerz
sagt die Angst
Es ist aussichtslos
sagt die Einsicht
Es ist was es ist
sagt die Liebe
Es ist lächerlich
sagt der Stolz
Es ist leichtsinning
sagt die Vorsicht
Es ist unmöglich
sagt die Erfahrung
Es ist was es ist
sagt die Liebe
Es ist Unsinn
sagt die Vernunft
Es ist was es ist
sagt die Liebe
Es ist Unglück
sagt die Berechnung
Es ist nichts als Schmerz
sagt die Angst
Es ist aussichtslos
sagt die Einsicht
Es ist was es ist
sagt die Liebe
Es ist lächerlich
sagt der Stolz
Es ist leichtsinning
sagt die Vorsicht
Es ist unmöglich
sagt die Erfahrung
Es ist was es ist
sagt die Liebe
Guru does it again!
This is yet another ripping-apart Kancha Ilaiah is known for. With characteristic clarity and his well-known(and widely-hated) instinct for going beyond the appearances, propaganda and jubilation, he follows up his earlier analyses of Telangana movement. This is a story of a betrayal foretold.
Published on Deccan Chronicle (http://www.deccanchronicle.com)
Telangana dream sours
By By Kancha Ilaiah
Feb 13 2010
The movement for Telangana has now touched a peak. It has also become a movement with unique characteristics. Masses belonging to all walks of life have come out to the streets with their cultural symbols. We can see dalit-Bahujans beating drums and dholaks, the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) with their ploughshares and bullock carts, shepherds with their flock, toddy tappers with their moku (rope assembly used to climb palm trees) and muttadu (the belt they wear to keep their hatchet) and stone-breakers with their own iron artefacts.
The festive game of Bathukamma (a women’s festival celebrated mainly during Dasara, pro-Telangana activists are performing the Bathukamma on the highways as a form of protest and to highlight their Telangana identity) was also enacted. It was being projected as a cultural symbol.
During the age of Nizam, Bathukamma used to be enacted by the Shudras — mostly OBCs. Dalits were not allowed to participate as they were seen as pollutants even by the OBCs of lower order. And the upper caste women — particularly Brahmins, Komatis, Reddys and Velamas — would not participate as it was seen as a Shudra festive game. They thought it was below their dignity.
Now suddenly some Dorasanlu (women of dominant castes) went to this play as a symbol of the agitation. Is it for Telangana or for power?
The most interesting thing is that while the lower castes are using their cultural symbols to achieve a separate Telangana, the members of former feudal families are playing the politics of agitation. We also see a surprising unity between some Reddy and Velama political lords.
The whole attempt by these two caste forces is to control the political joint action committee (JAC) that is driving the Telangana agitation. Some academicians have also been drawn in to mediate between those two otherwise politically warring castes.
It is as if the stereotype of future Telangana is being played out — “We will play politics and you should play Dhoom Dham, Bathukamma and drums”.
And some of these leaders are collecting huge amounts of money, mostly to build their family’s “political economy” while distributing pittance to ring leaders from the lower castes.
As the balladeer Gaddar rightly says “kanche kaada nuvvu, collection kaada neenu” (you should protect the fields and I will reap the crops). But some intellectuals keep on saying, “Let us not talk about any immorality — after all to achieve Telangana such small things need to be done”.
The most surprising aspect in the movement is the entry of the Maoist upper caste elements in this “more collection, less distribution” model of political economy.
In the name of achieving Telangana all ideological battles have been set aside. One upper caste Maoist intellectual went to the extent of saying that the JACs from village upwards were working like “Maoist communes”.
What this really means is that the sons — even some daughters — of upper caste landlords have come back to the villages to head and lead the JACs by “usurping” the legitimate village sarpanchs. Now Telangana has come under the raj of the upper caste JACs.
Some former Maoist activists have become leaders of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti and are praising their leader for conducting Yajnas, Yagas and Kratus in the party office. He also walks around with a huge Bal Thackeray type bottu (tilak) on the forehead and they seem to be enjoying the neo saffron style of the leader.
But the Muslims are scared of these visuals and the Bharatiya Janata Party probably sees a new rival in the region if it becomes a state.
The emergence of the Shiv Sena or of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena kind of political entity in the region does not seem to be a problem for the Maoists and they too seem to think that there is just one point agenda — we must achieve Telangana and hand over power to “our people”.
What really worries all of them is the student movement mainly headed by the dalit-Bahujan youth. This has become an inconvenient factor. There is competition to buy them off or to make them foot soldiers.
There is a resistance from the students but one does not know for how long the youth can sustain that resistance.
We also see the political JAC compromising with Centre and welcoming the Srikrishna Committee without it making any reference to Telangana state formation. Mr K. Jana Reddy welcomes the committee and K. Chandrasekhar Rao approves it in silence. The Telugu Desam keeps playing the double game quite skillfully. The Union home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, is doing some arm-twisting as he has a clear understanding about “the unholy alliance between Maoists and money collectors”.
What is really painful are the deaths of about 300 youth and the cases lodged against 10,000 students.
All these parties together have done is to put forth a chekka bomma — a wooden doll — to speak for them.
For the failure of the 1969 Telangana movement we had someone to blame — Marri Chenna Reddy. Now we cannot blame anybody.
At least those who played politics with a wooden doll in their hands got sufficient money to flight the next election in the name of Telangana.
Do the Maoists think that their class enemy has now become a class friend because of Telangana’s cut-throat politics?
Let them explain this to the people — the real people who played Bathukamma, cooked their food on the roads, beat their chests and drums and lost 300 of their children as well.
The festive game of Bathukamma (a women’s festival celebrated mainly during Dasara, pro-Telangana activists are performing the Bathukamma on the highways as a form of protest and to highlight their Telangana identity) was also enacted. It was being projected as a cultural symbol.
During the age of Nizam, Bathukamma used to be enacted by the Shudras — mostly OBCs. Dalits were not allowed to participate as they were seen as pollutants even by the OBCs of lower order. And the upper caste women — particularly Brahmins, Komatis, Reddys and Velamas — would not participate as it was seen as a Shudra festive game. They thought it was below their dignity.
Now suddenly some Dorasanlu (women of dominant castes) went to this play as a symbol of the agitation. Is it for Telangana or for power?
The most interesting thing is that while the lower castes are using their cultural symbols to achieve a separate Telangana, the members of former feudal families are playing the politics of agitation. We also see a surprising unity between some Reddy and Velama political lords.
The whole attempt by these two caste forces is to control the political joint action committee (JAC) that is driving the Telangana agitation. Some academicians have also been drawn in to mediate between those two otherwise politically warring castes.
It is as if the stereotype of future Telangana is being played out — “We will play politics and you should play Dhoom Dham, Bathukamma and drums”.
And some of these leaders are collecting huge amounts of money, mostly to build their family’s “political economy” while distributing pittance to ring leaders from the lower castes.
As the balladeer Gaddar rightly says “kanche kaada nuvvu, collection kaada neenu” (you should protect the fields and I will reap the crops). But some intellectuals keep on saying, “Let us not talk about any immorality — after all to achieve Telangana such small things need to be done”.
The most surprising aspect in the movement is the entry of the Maoist upper caste elements in this “more collection, less distribution” model of political economy.
In the name of achieving Telangana all ideological battles have been set aside. One upper caste Maoist intellectual went to the extent of saying that the JACs from village upwards were working like “Maoist communes”.
What this really means is that the sons — even some daughters — of upper caste landlords have come back to the villages to head and lead the JACs by “usurping” the legitimate village sarpanchs. Now Telangana has come under the raj of the upper caste JACs.
Some former Maoist activists have become leaders of the Telangana Rashtra Samiti and are praising their leader for conducting Yajnas, Yagas and Kratus in the party office. He also walks around with a huge Bal Thackeray type bottu (tilak) on the forehead and they seem to be enjoying the neo saffron style of the leader.
But the Muslims are scared of these visuals and the Bharatiya Janata Party probably sees a new rival in the region if it becomes a state.
The emergence of the Shiv Sena or of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena kind of political entity in the region does not seem to be a problem for the Maoists and they too seem to think that there is just one point agenda — we must achieve Telangana and hand over power to “our people”.
What really worries all of them is the student movement mainly headed by the dalit-Bahujan youth. This has become an inconvenient factor. There is competition to buy them off or to make them foot soldiers.
There is a resistance from the students but one does not know for how long the youth can sustain that resistance.
We also see the political JAC compromising with Centre and welcoming the Srikrishna Committee without it making any reference to Telangana state formation. Mr K. Jana Reddy welcomes the committee and K. Chandrasekhar Rao approves it in silence. The Telugu Desam keeps playing the double game quite skillfully. The Union home minister, Mr P. Chidambaram, is doing some arm-twisting as he has a clear understanding about “the unholy alliance between Maoists and money collectors”.
What is really painful are the deaths of about 300 youth and the cases lodged against 10,000 students.
All these parties together have done is to put forth a chekka bomma — a wooden doll — to speak for them.
For the failure of the 1969 Telangana movement we had someone to blame — Marri Chenna Reddy. Now we cannot blame anybody.
At least those who played politics with a wooden doll in their hands got sufficient money to flight the next election in the name of Telangana.
Do the Maoists think that their class enemy has now become a class friend because of Telangana’s cut-throat politics?
Let them explain this to the people — the real people who played Bathukamma, cooked their food on the roads, beat their chests and drums and lost 300 of their children as well.
Ethnic federalism will further marginalise Dalits - Mitra Pariyar
An opinion piece from Nepal Times. Thanks to ZESTCASTE email group.
See original with the author's photo: http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/component/content/article/13-top-column/4137-dalit-doubts-.html
Ethnic federalism will further marginalise Dalits.
By Mitra Pariyar
In his Kantipur column of 20 December Hari Roka, a pro-Maoist commentator and lawmaker, argued that part of the reason why India opposed the Maoists promoting a federal state was that it feared "the establishment of a new social system based on the redistribution of property and freedom from untouchability would have consequences on its states close to Nepal".
The statement is, inter alia, representative of how the Maoists continue to use Dalits in their propaganda. They have always claimed that theirs is a movement of the oppressed masses, and indeed many Dalits have sacrificed their lives for the cause. However, Roka's claim about untouchability rings hollow because there is little evidence to show that the ex-rebels actually care about the deeply entrenched problems of low castes.
On the contrary, Dalits increasingly feel they have had the rug pulled out from under them, not least because of the Maoists' unilateral declaration of autonomous ethnic states. Firstly, Dalits are not going to have their own autonomous state; they will be a tiny minority in all states. More importantly, Dalits suffer indignities and injustices not only at the hands of Bahuns and Chhetris, but also from Rais, Limbus, Madhesis, Gurungs, Magars, Newars, and others.
A 2006 report in Nepali Times stated: "In the hotbed of Tarai ethnic politics, mainstream Madhesi rights activists, anti-hills-people vigilantes, Maoist splinter groups and Tharu groups are demanding everything from greater autonomy to secession. But Madhesi Dalits are nowhere in the equation". The parties' attitude to Dalits in the Tarai and the hills remains the same, despite the pressure of massive political changes.
Hugo Gorringe, a British anthropologist who studied Indian Dalits, observes: "untouchability, it is clear, is irreconcilable with nationhood, and undermines the democratic project". The Nepali Congress and UML, despite their democratic credentials, have always refrained from taking Dalit issues seriously; their own workers and supporters regularly practice untouchability. The former rebels' initial enthusiasm about doing away with caste-based subordination has also been ephemeral. For instance, the Maoist government didn't, despite the popular expectation, start anything concrete to help Dalits; neither did it attempt to include them in important positions. Although they have been insisting on federal states named after particular groups, they have not yet articulated their policies on how untouchability can be effectively tackled.
Whilst Dalits are still struggling to become bona fide citizens of Nepal, they will have to fight separately to become the citizens of autonomous states as well. Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar's prescription for the Dalit movement was: "educate, agitate, organise". The implementation of autonomous ethnic states is likely to hinder these strategies, not least because the Dalit movement will then be dispersed and consequently further weakened.
Some believe that untouchability cannot be tackled until caste is annihilated; others think it can be challenged by emphasising the socioeconomic relationship between castes on the basis of modern national laws over customary ones. We should attempt to integrate low castes with other castes or ethnic groups to pave the way for a more egalitarian society. Ethnic federalism will only institutionalise and solidify caste or ethnic boundaries, instead of undermining them.The Maoists are likely to lose the support of many Dalits and others by pushing for their retrograde demand for ethnic federalism, even if it helps them in the short term. Like most Nepali citizens, Dalits want to live in peace with more dignity and better economic opportunities. This simple dream cannot be fulfilled if the powers that be don't give up their stance on ethnic federalism under the facade of revolutionary change.
See original with the author's photo: http://www.nepalnews.com/main/index.php/component/content/article/13-top-column/4137-dalit-doubts-.html
Ethnic federalism will further marginalise Dalits.
By Mitra Pariyar
In his Kantipur column of 20 December Hari Roka, a pro-Maoist commentator and lawmaker, argued that part of the reason why India opposed the Maoists promoting a federal state was that it feared "the establishment of a new social system based on the redistribution of property and freedom from untouchability would have consequences on its states close to Nepal".
The statement is, inter alia, representative of how the Maoists continue to use Dalits in their propaganda. They have always claimed that theirs is a movement of the oppressed masses, and indeed many Dalits have sacrificed their lives for the cause. However, Roka's claim about untouchability rings hollow because there is little evidence to show that the ex-rebels actually care about the deeply entrenched problems of low castes.
On the contrary, Dalits increasingly feel they have had the rug pulled out from under them, not least because of the Maoists' unilateral declaration of autonomous ethnic states. Firstly, Dalits are not going to have their own autonomous state; they will be a tiny minority in all states. More importantly, Dalits suffer indignities and injustices not only at the hands of Bahuns and Chhetris, but also from Rais, Limbus, Madhesis, Gurungs, Magars, Newars, and others.
A 2006 report in Nepali Times stated: "In the hotbed of Tarai ethnic politics, mainstream Madhesi rights activists, anti-hills-people vigilantes, Maoist splinter groups and Tharu groups are demanding everything from greater autonomy to secession. But Madhesi Dalits are nowhere in the equation". The parties' attitude to Dalits in the Tarai and the hills remains the same, despite the pressure of massive political changes.
Hugo Gorringe, a British anthropologist who studied Indian Dalits, observes: "untouchability, it is clear, is irreconcilable with nationhood, and undermines the democratic project". The Nepali Congress and UML, despite their democratic credentials, have always refrained from taking Dalit issues seriously; their own workers and supporters regularly practice untouchability. The former rebels' initial enthusiasm about doing away with caste-based subordination has also been ephemeral. For instance, the Maoist government didn't, despite the popular expectation, start anything concrete to help Dalits; neither did it attempt to include them in important positions. Although they have been insisting on federal states named after particular groups, they have not yet articulated their policies on how untouchability can be effectively tackled.
Whilst Dalits are still struggling to become bona fide citizens of Nepal, they will have to fight separately to become the citizens of autonomous states as well. Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar's prescription for the Dalit movement was: "educate, agitate, organise". The implementation of autonomous ethnic states is likely to hinder these strategies, not least because the Dalit movement will then be dispersed and consequently further weakened.
Some believe that untouchability cannot be tackled until caste is annihilated; others think it can be challenged by emphasising the socioeconomic relationship between castes on the basis of modern national laws over customary ones. We should attempt to integrate low castes with other castes or ethnic groups to pave the way for a more egalitarian society. Ethnic federalism will only institutionalise and solidify caste or ethnic boundaries, instead of undermining them.The Maoists are likely to lose the support of many Dalits and others by pushing for their retrograde demand for ethnic federalism, even if it helps them in the short term. Like most Nepali citizens, Dalits want to live in peace with more dignity and better economic opportunities. This simple dream cannot be fulfilled if the powers that be don't give up their stance on ethnic federalism under the facade of revolutionary change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)