Caste: I am not, but I am

Anyone who even dabbles in academia, especially in the social sciences, would be wary of making a singular, essentialist statement about caste. Because, caste in contemporary India operates in several layers, constantly renegotiating their exertions with varying space and time. Socio-historical emplacement, political and economic disenfranchisement, aesthetic and racial overtones, and linguistic and symbolic violence are some of the layers that complexify the idea of caste in public discourse. Nevertheless, at the risk of being wordy and simplistic, I’ll try to present my understanding of caste in a way that is most relevant to an audience that browses through blogs like this. (In saying so, I do not mean to characterize the readers’ acumen one way or the other.)

Ideology vs. Social Reality

One of the primary attributes of caste is the identity it imparts on an individual. The identity is so rigid that even Marxist theorists have floundered in their assessments about caste. I have a friend who, at least according to him, grew up in an environment that allowed him to be oblivious of his caste identity. He wasn’t aware of his fellow students’ either. So caste, seemingly, played a minimal role in how he turned out. In one of our conversations I referred to him as a Brahmin and he objected to it. He said, “I don’t even know what it means to be a Brahmin and I don’t care if I am not one. Why do you want to make that association still?”

While many of us may not identify ourselves with any caste (or religion) anymore, we cannot ignore that it’s only in principle, and our actions as we understand it. My friend may have been unaware of his caste himself, but the environment probably wasn’t. Privilege is a relative idea that needs be situated to appreciate it. He, to a slightly lesser extent, I and a lot of us are privileged in that we were not made to sit out of class rooms, served tea in a separate tumbler, denied entry into a temple, and patronized by the government – some of the many forms of oppression the lower-caste individuals go through.

Being in this privileged position enables us to form a worldview that is often devoid of critical assessment of power structures that bind us. For we are not at the bottom of the pyramid; status quo, as long as it enables our mobility, is not a problem [1]. We make every reason to defend the substructures – like religious dogma, morality, partisan ethics, “merit” etc. – that limit the access to power to the others. The most disturbing aspect of this equation is the upper caste rhetoric that tries to conceal the underlying ruthless, ant-colony behaviour [2].

I remember a lecture during which one of my professors spoke about the time she realized she was white. She probably knew she was white all along, but it took that one moment to remind her how she’s different from the black or the brown. As she put it, “the realization didn’t change my race, but it urged me to racialize more issues.” The same applies to caste and a society where castes exist. I may detest my caste now, but I still would not be able to divorce the privilege it rendered – from within and by others – in the past and it may in future. We cannot stop “drawing casteist lines” until social reality re-orients itself with the ideology in pursuit.

The Social Brahmin

Who is a Brahmin? If I were to present an apologetic/defensive case, I would probably cite verses from the Gita or numerous other scriptures. I might even use a carefully concocted narrative that makes it all seem perfectly reasonable – as in Cho’s Enge Brahamanan. But a moral hierarchy is inherently problematic for any academic, whether he/she is a Marxist or a post modernist. The existentialist quest to be the “superior” – irrespective of the means and accessibility to the said quest – is of negligible importance.

What is important is the status of the social Brahmin (just like the social Hindu). Cho Ramaswamy, for instance, has often said that he is not a Brahmin because he doesn’t possess the “superior” qualities of one. I have seen many bloggers and other "internet individuals" take a similar stance. Quite ironically though, they have also mentioned “I’m a Brahmin by birth” elsewhere. Regardless of what their stance is, the priest in a temple would probably not recall Cho’s theoretical distancing from a Brahmin; and my light skinned friend is likely to get a better reception when he steps into an Alwarpet music store than I would.

These are only relatively subtle elements that elevate the social Brahmin. A theoretically rigorous and academic approach would delineate several factors – disputing the myths of cultural and racial superiority – that contribute to ‘the Brahmin success story’. It would be redundant for me to argue why there are more Brahmins in the elite educational institutions of India or why there is a disproportionate number of Brahmins abroad. So I can never sympathize, at least not as seriously, with a Brahmin who claims to be a social victim of some kind.

The "Excess"

Power and exploitation become central to any ideology if it can lend enough credence to its chastity. Brahminism, as an ideology that propagates rigid, hierarchical structures based on piety, vocation and its modern variants, is at the core of the caste system. It has been appropriated and re-asserted by several castes over several hundred years – the prominent ones being Gounder, Thevar, Chettiyar and lately Vanniyar. It may seem as if scholars, mainstream writers and bloggers ‘attack’ Brahmins more than other castes. But their ubiquitous presence in various media, quite ironically, is the very reason for the seemingly excessive criticism. There are more members from the Brahmin community defending some form of Brahminism in written media – mainstream or otherwise – than any other. Among all the upper castes it’s the Brahmins, at least in my observation, who are the least invisible in urban areas.

Frankly, I do not see any reason to tone down the criticism of someone who has the insolence to claim an essentialist, oppressive identity in public space – be it Brahmins or other upper-castes. What we need is not a reduction in censuring Brahmins, but increase in including Gounders, Thevars and Vanniyars. For the latter hold Brahminism not only in principle but execute it with utmost vengeance. The treatment of these castes in media like cinema – especially in movies like Chinna Gounder, Thevar Magan etc. – is reflective of the appalling insensibility that Tamils as a society have engendered.

If anyone is outraged by what’s been said so far because he/she belongs to a particular caste, he/she should ask himself/herself, “why do I care?”

--------------------------------------------------

[1] – Contrast the protestors, dressed in trek shoes and jeans, against the quota system with Dalits in tattered clothes protesting for basic human rights. The state’s indifference to either of them is a different issue in itself.

[2] - Upper in upper caste cannot be put in quotes because we are referring to a system in which hierarchy is intrinsic. To argue that all castes are equal -- by using quotes -- is flawed considering what constitutes caste.

The Moderate Hindu

The controversy surrounding the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project has finally brought the “Dravidian rationality” out of the closet. For decades MK’s views on Hinduism were confined to a largely apathetic population – the Tamil Hindus. But today’s coalition politics and power struggle in the centre has ensured that the core “Hindu-Nation” is exposed to his rhetoric. From a general observation one may come across some of the following being discussed in the mainstream media: profit/loss estimates of the project, ecological concerns, “Hindu sentiments” and, of course, Ram.

The BJP, who I once sympathised with, was looking exactly for this kind of an opportunity on account of a possible midterm election. It masqueraded itself, as usual, as the "moderate Hindu" whose sentiments were hurt by comments made by Karunanidhi. But there are, somewhat to my surprise, some "moderate Tamil-Hindus" who were enraged by his comments, or so they try to pretend. This crowd comprises mostly of young men in their early 20s who are on their way to joining the elite pack of half-baked, self-proclaimed critics of Tamil politics - mostly belonging to the upper castes. They have, for years, tried to sound clever and witty simply by pointing to the hypocrisy of Dravidian parties, especially MK and his minority politics.
One of the questions that appear regularly is "would he have the guts to say the same about prophet Mohammed or Jesus Christ?" For many the question is a panacea for all anti-Hindu rhetoric and criticisms alike. But the question can only mean one of the two: either they have a problem with accepting them all as fictional characters -- at least to the extent their supernatural abilities are concerned -- or they agree that Ram is a creation of fiction and they want MK to take the next step (which he can clearly choose not to). To criticise him for not being so forthright about Islam or the Bible is only a deviation.

Note: in order to disengage the polemics around 'what Hinduism actually is', I shall propose that the word Hinduism used henceforth be understood as 'social Hinduism' -- one that exists as more than an abstract entity and provides a systemic structure that is identified as culture, tradition, ethos and even "Indian sentiment." One that is at the core of the caste system.

It doesn't take a sharp mind to see through the "rationality" propaganda of the Dravidian parties. Nevertheless, it has to be admitted that underneath all the hypocrisy and sleazy politics there is some rationale in their criticisms. To question just the hypocrisy is to lose focus, quite deliberately, of the larger, critical issue: are you batting for casteist, sexist, oppressive mythical figures just because you're sick of minority politics?

Yes, "Hinduism is not even a religion"; "Hinduism has some of the most ancient, liberal, intellectual doctrines"; "Hinduism does not force anyone to do anything" and a list of other things that I myself had said several times before to cut it some, no, a lot of slack. But who was I bullshitting? Why should I turn a blind eye to all the social inequities that it has been directly responsible for? Whose face was I trying to save?
Majority of Hindus in India, I presume, are just as racist, just as homophobic, just as patriarchal, just as moralistic and just as reactionary as the Christian right wing of America and far worse in some cases. Only that "moderate Hindu's" attitudes don't emerge as often in mainstream media.

Rediff through Orkut, there's no scarcity of "moderate Hindus" who proclaim that the Ramayana happened a hundred thousand years ago and the Mahabharata a few thousand years later. Do they know how old the wheel is? The "moderate Hindu" appears to be more creationist than Christians and Muslims. For he/she believes that humans were not only "created" but with a divine, innate social, hierarchical position (how one attains the rank being immaterial at this juncture).
Even if you leave these issues aside, the ever prominent inhuman subjugation of "lower caste" people stares at you right in the face. The "moderate Hindu" is so oblivious to the atrocities committed in the name of caste, past and present, that his/her only defence is "Hindus never tried to convert non-Hindus." (Assumption: is it just a coincidence that most of these "moderate Hindus" either belong to the "upper castes" or never experienced casteism?)

The contemporary "moderate Hindu" is a right wing nationalist who has inundated himself/herself with essentialist notions. His/her shelter against minority/caste politics is not rationality but pseudo-intellectual jingoism.

It is unfortunate that the Indian voter has to choose between Italian bootlickers and "cultural" fascists. But it's even more unfortunate that this dilemma clouds his/her judgment on more socially relevant issues that are clearly disconnected from electoral politics.
----------------------------

Personal statement: My loathing for Islam and Christianity have come across several times, quite conspicuously, in my posts and podcasts -- it remains the same. However, the same cannot be said about my views on Hinduism: it's been more apologetic than I would have liked. It was probably due to the "clouding" in my judgment or simply a residual effect -- the fact that I shared the 'Hindu' identity till a year ago. At this point, I think, the distinction between 'social Hinduism' and "actual Hinduism" is more than irrelevant, for the former is what forms the social reality of the present (except, may be, in elite metaphysical and theological discussions). Keeping that in mind, I would like to state that I now loathe Hinduism just as much as, if not more than, the other religions.
It goes without saying that I have been, in the past, what I have censured in this post in several instances. One can see this either as a transition informed by literature and reflexivity or simply a recent systemic bias.