Before I get going in my quintessential manner, I’d like to get a few things clear. I am definitely not against the caste system of our society. That they existed so long and will continue doing so implies there is some good in them. Besides, the greater the number of sects, the better is the case. This is because people will have a wider choice to choose from (and no one would be left out). What I strive for is a change in the way people choose to attribute their belonging to the community.
I, for one, do not use the word tribe in a condescending manner (just to make few things crystal clear). Though a digression, I believe that the sensitivity and humanitarian levels of tribes these days far exceed that of the competitive, back-stabbing city people. The tribal premise that I want to write about is this. It so happens in a tribe that the earned fruits are shared among the entire community. This is without due recognition to the actual bread winner. I have no qualms about this tendency because the tribe doesn’t claim any exclusive privilege for itself.
When the same behavior is replicated in environs with lofty ideals such as equality, liberty, and the like; a problem crops up. That ChandraBabu is responsible for the IT hub in A.P jibes totally well with me. I have no qualms about giving the visionary his due credit. This shouldn’t and cannot be a reason for the entire batch of Khammas to jump on his band wagon and wag their tails about. My simple question is this: “Agreed that the guy has done so much; what did YOU do? What are you even gloating about?” If logic as simple as this sits well in your head, I am all up for casteism.
To further instantiate, that the beautiful temples in South India and prominent Universities (Nalanda) were built by people of Viswa Karma shouldn’t be a reason for a guy from that community to boast about it. It is as much his as any other guy’s. It is precisely this attributing the effort of a few guys from a caste to the entire caste which results in unfounded privileges and brute like behavior (read caste feeling). YSR might have done something good in his tenure; but this can never ever be a reason for Reddys to claim credit. Ditto with the Brahmins. Agreed their forefathers had great command over the Vedas, what credit should we attribute to them if the principle of all encompassing unity that the Vedas preach is nowhere to be found in their behavior.
The square truth is that caste gloating happens only if the sect is known to enjoy some privileges. Obviously, you don’t see a guy speaking highly of his caste by quoting a notorious failure. But the vantage status is totally unfounded. ( This tribal premise also applies to the place of study. I see pictures of libraries and other facilities of different institutes on facebook with a caption detailing the largeness of that facility. But what good is the facility when you frequent it once in a blue moon?)
To sum things up, Casteism per se is neither good nor bad, like the fire that cooks the meal and burns stuff; like the internet which has helped me post this write up and also exploits the not so tech savvy customers trying to e-bank. If it isn’t for claiming privileges, I think caste maniacs will hardly find casteism attractive.
4 comments:
Long ago i decided i shouldn't float in web-sphere....but couldn't resist to comment when my fellow IITian raised voice against a social element (ailment indeed) when the rest of them are busy rolling on floor(rofl) or laughing out loud(lol) on facebook.
"they existed so long and will continue doing so implies there is some good in them"
--the only benefit in casteism is to inject some social order.to avoid confusions-who should rule?who is to be ruled?
in this capitalistic world,where exploitation paramounts the attitude of people...can you still call this a good.
"the greater the number of sects, the better is the case. This is because people will have a wider choice to choose from"
--caste is not something like astronomy club or EDC..to CHOOSE(truly speaking, i didn't exactly understand what you were trying to say)
I think this is the theme of your post.
"his attributing the effort of a few guys from a caste to the entire caste"
--i agree this should be condemned.if a guy hails his own caste exampling few success...i would rather laugh at his ignorance....this is not going to do any harm to the society more than to him.Of course,it may irritate few people like you. But,the serious problem with casteism starts with discrimination and exploitation.
Long ago people were afraid to question the barbaric practices of 'sati' and unapproachability......only after 3 centuries we stopped hearing about these stupid acts.
i don't know how many centuries it's going to take to smash this honour killings,caste prejudices,social discrimination and social exploitation.
i appreciate you at least gave a thought for it.
1. The post elucidates the pseudo-rationalization behind caste-ism and caste gloating. It nowhere borders on the problems with casteism.
2. You seem to have very little knowledge of our Indian history. There was a time during Adi-Shankaracharya when a group of fisher-men were made Kshatriyas and another Brahmins according to the need at that time. And it is the same farmer class that got split into Velamas, Kammas, Kapus, and Reddys. So dont shoot this non-sense of you cant choose/create a caste.
3. "The only benefit of casteism is to inject social order" -fine. But I am appalled with horror to read the following lines:
"Who should rule and who is to be ruled?"
a) Why should there be necessarily a ruler? Can't we all live as equals at least in spirit and essence if not in manifested materialism.
b) Agreed that you need a ruler for administrative reasons (I prefer the word representative to ruler), how is that status to be given to a caste? I though the leader was judged based on his merit and not on caste. And to hear that from a fellow IITian? :-/
Just because you hail from the Reddy class doesn't make you a ruler. Hell I'd rather appreciate the caste-fanatic who openly says 'I support Balayya because he is from our caster'. There is no pretension in the latter case, and thank god he isnt attempting a half-baked self-deluding 'logic' that you have.
5. That casteism causes discrimination jibes well with me. But exploitation? What the hell, exploitation is as much due to monetary differences as is due to casteism, if not more. "VANTAGE STATUS" is what causes exploitation.
6. Sati cannot be attributed to casteism. It was a 'social' act- with chastity as its foundation. That those times drove this apparently good idea of chastity to such fanatic extremes has nothing to do with casteism.
Post a Comment