WYSIWYG

What You See Is What You Get. This is a journal blog, an explore-blog, a bit of this and that blog. Sharing where the mood takes me. Perhaps it will take you too.

Menonstruckshunal; A Brief Matter of Political Context

That title is nonsense, of course. Nothing political is ever brief, and context is no small matter when it comes to the political as it stands for society. 

A hefty sentence to begin the post, but, dear readers, the subject prompted is itself hefty. What prompt? This comment from Gail, in response to Monday's menoculayshunal post...

...So get a cuppa and biccie and settle down for a long read.

Although, to some degree, the answer lay within the last few lines of that post as to the currency of the caste system, the remaining questions deserve an answer, and this is a subject that often gets skirted. To be fair, a part of me would like to just move along, but this cannot be ignored. I said on Monday that it is a thorny subject - perhaps it would be fair to up that analogy to a minefield. Why? Well, as I attempted to convey the other day, Indian society itself has taken the written word out of context and built around it a doctrine with which to build a society in favour of those who consider themselves elite. Over centuries the four inherent qualities were removed from being the natural talents that show in each of us from our karma 'bank' and were made into a case of inheritance by birth. Further, many other levels within those four castes developed;  there are thought to be around 3,000 castes and 25,000 sub-castes, often ascribed to a single occupation. 

Now, the thing is that much of this reinforcement of status by birth only became fully embedded once the British got a foothold in India. Before the 18th century, records would indicate that there was not the state of distaste that can sometimes be observed in more recent history between the different strata of the society. Simply put, due to the Raj having to keep records familiar to the British, meaning that the castes became fully integrated with the occupations generally held by them, social status became political. It was apartheid before that word became known from the Boer's and their separation of society according to birth status.

source
Unfortunately, even before the fight for independence flourished in the subcontinent, this also engendered a politicised view of what it is to be Hindu. Thus arose Hindutva
a political philosophy styled after European fascism of the early twentieth century, an ideology that privileges a cult of personality and authoritarian leadership. It gave rise to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) - "National Volunteer Organisation." The key difference between Hinduism and Hindutva is that the first is a mobile, adaptable, adoptive faith which seeks growth and interaction, while the second seeks unquestioned allegiance to a myth-oriented, hate-mongering dogma that reifies and sanctions its violent modes of operation. The currently ruling party is politically affiliated with the RSS, and Narendra Modi has been a life-long member. Not only does Hindutva advocate hatred against all non-Hindus, (although it does allow that Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are at least native to India), it reinforces all the tropes of casteism and superstition that the fundamental philosophy (Advaita Vedanta) deplores. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a Hindu who fought not just for independence but also for equalities within India; his assassin, Nathuram Vinayak Godse, was a Hindutva member of the RSS.

Thus, in direct response to Gail's question, has casteism strengthened or weakened since independence? I am inclined to say neither, as it was already quite entrenched from Victorian times but is now very much to the fore again due to the political state of India at the moment. Given the size of the population, RSS constitutes a comparatively small percentage in terms of member numbers - but due to the elitist nature and that BJP currently has control, there have been some terrible outrages against fellow Indians in recent years. 

The reservation system (which had its seeds as early as the 1930s but was formalised after independence) attempted to secure better opportunities for the lower castes. Interestingly, the RSS relies upon the lower-registered castes for its muscle and does not openly oppose reservation. (A cynic might see this as the Brahmin-founded organisation tolerating other castes in order not to get their hands dirty...) Modi himself claims to be of OBC (Other Backward Caste) classification and, therefore, a beneficiary of the reservation system. No doubt there has been a good deal of positive progress from reservation, but it has only served to further politicise social classification in the form of caste.

On the personal level, when I was not permitted to touch the upacharya's feet, he saw me as OBC. When I was out shopping, the auto drivers might have seen me as OBC also and therefore 'fair game,' but the white sari assigned me Brahmin status and thus be respected and have my own feet touched.

Them and us. Society everywhere has this. It has ever been thus and shall ever be. I share with you another pertinent comment from Monday...

Further, let me share some links to reading that adds to the scope of this post and show that it is not just in India that the PLU sentiment arises - and that there seems to be no escaping a particular band of folk who are determined to claim superiority. Thank you for taking the time to read this far, if you have. It's not easy, it's not light, but it should not be ignored.



8 comments:

  1. Great post! And the caste system is alive and well in the diaspora to the enclaves here too. I like how Tigger referred to as "PLU".

    ReplyDelete
  2. oh that was interesting... and we agree... society everywhere has this...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting reading. And again: minority rules majority. We will never learn, will we?
    Klem

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting background post. Thanks for taking the trouble to answer my question so comprehensively.
    Cheers! Gail.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh my YAM it was quite interesting and all new information to me. While working at NCSU we had many students and scholars from India. All eager to answer questions about their culture many amazingly different
    Hugs Cecilia

    ReplyDelete
  6. your last paragragh is true and always will be, Them and Us, from the beginning of time and to the end of time. Them and Us in school, in politics, in tribes and races and countries, rich and poor, educated and uneducated,
    I remember as a teen reading about the American West and Historical Fiction about England, those were my go to for reading material. shocked at the them and us in the west and in England, chopping off the hands of children because they stole bread to eat was the one that i remember to this day....

    ReplyDelete
  7. Twas ever thus: socioeconomics divide us, shape our point of view, and our lives.

    ReplyDelete

Inquiry and debate are encouraged.
Be grown-ups, please, and play nice.
🙏