Yasin Malik injured in Srinagar protests

[Flintlock]

Assasino
It's a meaty piece. There is little point in being economic with it. Progress and Reform - well, certainly, from a point of view, that position can be taken with credibility, however; it can also be argued that traditional caste roles still play a significant role - in fact, one can argue that caste remains a defining element in Indian political circles. And if we become cheer leaders, we will do so at the risk of setting aside critical review, that does not mean that Progress and Reform was not or is not being achieved

It was interesting to me that caste is structural. Most Indian I interact despise the notion, the idea of caste, and yet it is a pervasive, corrosive element because it is built in and recognized by the constitution and government policy...

You are right in saying that caste is pervasive in Indian society. It functions as an extended family. A sort of support-system. Sometimes, it works like a tribe, and sometimes it works as a way to establish a hierarchical order in society.

To understand the caste system, it is essential to study it in the context of the period where it was functional and necessary, rather than by the modern critical viewpoint (and rightly so), where it is little more than a nuisance and a hindrance to development.

The British and the Muslim rulers did little to understand the basis of Indian society, and simply tried to remould society according to their worldview. This led to disastrous consequences in most of Northern India.

For example, castes functioned as guilds where highly specialized knowledge was passed on from generation to generation. When this system was broken up without providing an alternative, the traditional knowledge of everything from medicine, architecture, engineering, environment and society died down because the chain was broken. This is just one example of the many in which traditional Indian society was degraded to the point of being dysfunctional.

Also, by branding the system as evil and discriminatory, it created a lot of resentment and hatred between castes. No society, however discriminatory it appears to outsiders, thinks of itself in such terms. It always considers itself the most just society.

So ironically, the regions of India which were most influenced by foreign rule have been the last to change and reform, and the regions which were insulated from foreign influence (Kerala, Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand etc.) have done far better in terms of breaking down the caste system and establishing a more egalitarian society.


..

It seems that government taking a position with regard to caste, has allowed caste to not just remain but grow in consciousness. It was intersting to read that there is a caste for Hindu indians who reject caste -- it seems to me, very Indian. ..

A government cannot reject something so pervasive outright. It will create tremendous imbalances and resentment. It must meet society halfway, and try to change things from there.

We cannot and will not do a China, by which I mean that make society do an about-turn within a span of 20 years.

..

I also find the divide between English speaking Indians and non, to be interesting, particularly the economic and political. If one is persuaded that relying on the State for employment is a net negative, then perhaps the majority should be English speaking

What does it say about the kinds of ideas about politics and society that inform the use of non-English languages? I would suggest that a rather similar thing exists in Pakistan....

Nobody would argue against that. However, there is nothing new in this. India always had an elite language (Sanskrit) and the language of the commoners (Prakrit and other regional tongues).
I'd think that a similar situation prevailed in Pakistan as well, with the language of the rulers and elite being Urdu, and the language of the locals being the Punjabi, Sindhi, etfc.

...

The English introduced their education system to the "natives" in the belief that they were doing good for the "natives" - and from a persepective, they may have been right to think so; ouch.

Mr. Manmohan Singh visited UK a few months ago. He gave a speech, saying that colonalism had given many benefits to the Indian people.

I however, look it at it differently. The colonials tried to replace the old society with a new one, build upon Victorian principles. To the extent that they were able to influence Indians, they created a new class of english-speakers (Nehru epitomises this class).
However, the vast majority were left in a limbo, with their society being dismantled and branded as evil, but not given access to the new social order.
This created a vast, clueless population which was stripped of its moorings and support-systems. The great famines in Bengal and Bihar during the 1800s were an indication of how badly the Brits messed things up.

Today's India is simply about the Old Broken India catching up with the New India. We cannot turn back the clock and return to the 10th century.
The fight is between the Congress, which has long left its Victorian leanings and is today simply a mish-mash of ideas and viewpoints with no clear agenda or goal, and the BJP/RSS combine, which seeks to create a new ideology that takes into account all that has happened since the last Golden Age, and re-engineer Indian society from the ground up.

 

[salman nedian]

Perfently, if any leader are going against India kill them without delay......

We can understand Ashfaque! You live in India hence must say this.

Any ways go ahead and you will see that this step will inflame the will of freedom in occupied Kashmir.

 

[muse]

Now, that's more like it. I agree about the context and that it may have served as a guild - however; lets be clear Manu most certainly did not mean it to serve as a guild - it's very basis is biological discrimination (jaat/zaat). But I do take your point - and unlike your view of a big happy family, I would point out that what we see is a corruption.

And because it is a corruption - anything that old will become a coruption in a society marked by practicality - had government simply left the issue alone and had a general statement voicing the "disapproval" of the "peoples" - caste might not fared as well - again, because it's utility/practicality diminshes as society becomes more prosperous - however; govt. intervention has played havoc with that natural consequence, a caste for those who reject caste!!

English and the motives of the English:

If you study the motivation of the English and the religious/ethical/moral context that the English were acting in, you may change your mind about what they hoped to achieve -- There is an article I posted in the current events section about Art of the romantic and victorian era and it's understanding of the world as percieved by the Englishers - Yes, lots of misperceptions, but remember that for the Farangi, their revulsion of the East as they found in Asia in particular arose of their deep disappointment - they thought we were better than we were - it led them to disrespect us and our cultures even more -- and it is in this light coupled with utilitariaism, that you will note that their intention, was to do what they thought was the right thing -- And given that the Englsi speaking population is generally less prone to violence, pettyness and coarseness in matters social, I am conflicted, but must admit that the issue needs to be adressed by non-English speakers.

You will recall that there was a lovely, bright interlocutor on PDF, who said of language that it reflects and creates social reality - if this is true, how would English and non-English speakers explain their vision and choices in matters social and political? - Also see related article in the current events section in the "light a candle" thread

 

[Flintlock]

Now, that's more like it. I agree about the context and that it may have served as a guild - however; lets be clear Manu most certainly did not mean it to serve as a guild - it's very basis is biological discrimination (jaat/zaat). But I do take your point - and unlike your view of a big happy family, I would point out that what we see is a corruption.

As I said, it was a complex thing, and the people who were part of the system (even the ones in the lower rungs) did not think of it as unjust. Because if they did, it could not have possibly survived for such a long time.

You have to do some reading Muse. For one, you must understand the Hindu concept of Time. Time was measured in billions of years according to Hindu texts, and our lifetimes were simply a small blip. This, along with the principle of reincarnation and Karma, meant that even the lowest-caste hindu could live many lives and perhaps promote himself to a higher caste in his next life by following dharma.
In a closed world where this was the standard worldview, it was not surprising that people were usually happy to be in their own caste, which functioned as a propogator of knowledge and a support-system for the caste members.

Ultimately, what keeps people going is hope. If a jawan in the army has no hope of getting promoted, he will not be motivated to do his duties.

Hope can also lead to disaster. Communism is a classic example. The concept of taking from the rich and giving to the poor is a very attractive one for the people who don't have money.
However, little do they realize that without the greed of capitalism to motivate people, there will be nobody to generate wealth, and consequently, to distribute it.

Even the concepts on racism and racial superority need rethinking. For example, nobody in the USA will hesitate from saying that blacks are better than whites at Basketball. The evidence is for all to see - most basketball players are black.
However, if the same reasoning is applied to state that whites are better than blacks at mathematics, it would lead to outrage.
The sad fact is that whites do have higher average IQs than blacks, and blacks on an average are better physical specimens. That doesn't mean to say that blacks cannot learn mathematics or that whites cannot play basketball.

Similarly, different castes in India were good at different things. The Sompuras or stone masons were experts at building temples and stonework. The Marwaris are excellent at trading and business. The Rajputs and Marathas were good warriors.
So its not surprisng that even in modern India, most Brahmins are administrators, most Rajputs are in the army, and most Sompuras/craftsmen are artists, engineers, builders, animators etc.

And because it is a corruption - anything that old will become a coruption in a society marked by practicality - had government simply left the issue alone and had a general statement voicing the "disapproval" of the "peoples" - caste might not fared as well - again, because it's utility/practicality diminshes as society becomes more prosperous - however; govt. intervention has played havoc with that natural consequence, a caste for those who reject caste!!

That is the best it can do. Remember, the government itself is made up of people who follow the caste system. That makes it that much less effective.

For example, the local education officer is supposed to spread the idea that all men are equal and caste should be rejected. However. if his own family is of a higher caste and at risk of losing their influence, will this officer do his duty? I'd expect not.

Which is why I consider the current system a top-down one, where Manmohan Singh spells out the policies which the lower ranking babus may or may not implement.

English and the motives of the English:

If you study the motivation of the English and the religious/ethical/moral context that the English were acting in, you may change your mind about what they hoped to achieve -- There is an article I posted in the current events section about Art of the romantic and victorian era and it's understanding of the world as percieved by the Englishers - Yes, lots of misperceptions, but remember that for the Farangi, their revulsion of the East as they found in Asia in particular arose of their deep disappointment - they thought we were better than we were - it led them to disrespect us and our cultures even more -- and it is in this light coupled with utilitariaism, that you will note that their intention, was to do what they thought was the right thing -- And given that the Englsi speaking population is generally less prone to violence, pettyness and coarseness in matters social, I am conflicted, but must admit that the issue needs to be adressed by non-English speakers.

You will recall that there was a lovely, bright interlocutor on PDF, who said of language that it reflects and creates social reality - if this is true, how would English and non-English speakers explain their vision and choices in matters social and political? - Also see related article in the current events section in the "light a candle" thread

This is why we need to understand the history of South Asia in the languages it was written in.
There is usually a vast amount of detail that gets lost in translation, and ultimately distorts reality and moulds it into the shape of the attitudes of those who wrote it.

 

[muse]

Super post, Assasino - take me a while to disgest that. Explanation of the relation of concept of time, mobility and hope is interesting.

Multiple histories - I completely gree - and yes, it is on some levels dangerous, but we need not be insecure - it'snot like we have a choice, it must be dealt with.