My thoughts on ethnocentrism

My thoughts on ethnocentrism 
---------------------------------------------------
The britishers always believed that they have the right to decide the fate of Indians, as they are on a providential mission to civilize us. Thus they made laws which interfered in customs of Indians, be it banning of sati or increasing the age of consent for marriage. Our freedom fighters did not justify the irrational and inhuman customs, but they always believed that Indians are empowered enough to decide what is right and what is wrong for them.

60 plus years after independence we still have a section among the majority group which will decide what the minority should eat, speak, or how to celebrate their festivals. I am not getting into the debate whether beef-eating is good or not, or whether 'jallikattu' is needed or not..

The problem here is a few people among the majority consider that their culture, their language, their eating habits is more civilized, more humane, and more superior compared to others. And they have the right to impose their culture upon others as they constitute the majority. This has created a backlash among the minorities who feel that their identity is being threatened. A possibility of having a healthy debate on the pros and cons of any issue is vitiated.

We felt infuriated when macaulay (during the famous macaulay minute on Indian education) said "....that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia". So its natural for ethnic minorities to get infuriated if you give a coloured criticism about their culture, language or eating practise.  

Every culture or language or eating habit has a history. For centuries, the higher caste monopolized sanskrit and denied vedic education to lower castes. Discarding cattle carcass was the duty prescribed to lower castes in the caste system and so lower castes consume beef.

 Likewise Jallikattu too has a history and culture behind it. People who have never ever seen Jallikattu are posting in FB about tamilians having a barbaric sport similar to bull fight of spain, while conveniently ignoring about dangerous sports in their own culture. Jallikattu is not an equivalent of bull fight. 

Unless this ethnocentric mentality of viewing another culture as inferior is dropped we cant have any healthy debate over a cultural practise. But this is currently impossible.
We have seen is these 2 years the way beef was banned, the way sanskrit was imposed in government run schools, how madrassa education was derecognized in maharashtra and few more incidents. 

So the issue is not whether to ban jallikattu or to continue it. The issue is that we have destroyed the democratic spirit of having healthy debates. 

The politics of divide and rule

The politics of divide and rule can be learnt from this example.

1.You derecognize a group named Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle in IIT-Madras. Protest starts.

2.You start quoting selectively and propagate that Ambedkar and Periyar stood for two different ideologies. Potray periyar as anti-brahmin while Ambedkar was just anti-brahminism.(I read somewhere that to name a group “Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle” is akin to naming a group “Nehru Jinnah Study Centre")

3.Bring other trivial issues about their view on India,Sanskrit,religion etc. Bury all the core reforms which they did(as there are chances for commonality) and also the issues which the Ambedkar Periyar study circle stood for.

4. After successfully creating the divide, absorb the followers of Ambedkar and ask them to oppose the followers of Periyar as anti-national(becuase Periyar did not believe in India...u see, if you have to follow a person you have to blindly accept all his ideas in total and so all periyar followers are anti-India). Now appropriate Ambedkar as your party idol because its easy to rewrite history and no one is going to cross verify the truth.

5. After the dalit votes turn to your favour, sideline the Ambedkar followers(and dalits).

6. Complete the divide and rule as the main issue is now forgotten.

E.V.Ramasamy(Periyaar)

E.V Ramasamy (Periyaar) was not an avatar of god. He is just a normal human as each one of us and it is childish to expect him to be perfect in everything. 

He preached rationalism and self-respect. He attacked the widely held religious beliefs which is bound to hurt the sentiments of followers of many religions. He believed in Aryan-invasion theory and tried for a separate country "Dravidistan". 

People accuse him for offending the sentiments of hindus by burning (Lord) Ram's effigies. The very same people celebrate "hatred" every year in Ramaleela by burning huge effigies of Ravan and Kumbhakarna.

People accuse him for sowing seeds of secesssion. Yes, he did. Just like Jinnah tried for a separate pakistan, Periyar tried for a separate Dravidistan. Because he feared that Britishers would be replaced by north-Indians and the south-Indians would still remain without political and economic freedom. Ambedkar went to Britishers to ask for separate electorate for dalits. Ambedkar believed that Upper caste hindus would never give 'social justice' to dalits. Does that mean Ambedkar was a British Agent?? 

Periyar also organized protests against imposition of hindi way back in 1937.

People accuse periyar for spreading hatred against brahmins. He questioned why brahmins who constitute just 3% of the population occupy 70% of the government posts in madras presidency. He attacked the caste system, the benefits of which the upper castes were enjoying. He attacked the rituals and brought self-respect marriage which does not have brahmin priests and other hindu rituals.

Attacking a century old social-system is bound to create tensions. When social change happens, vested interests groups will try to resist the change and preserve the dominance. 

If you have problems with the ideology of periyaar, question the ideology and prove in what way it is wrong. Don't find faults in him like he married a young woman, attacked brahmins etc. As I said before, he is just a normal human and not a 'perfect' god.

P.S: I am not a follower of periyar and I dont subscribe to all his views. 

S.C.Bose, Ambedkar and RSS

There has been increased attempts to own up leaders who stood against congress. The leaders now are Subhash Chandra Bose and Ambedkar. 

Ambedkar's 125th birth anniversary falls on April 14th. His views are being distorted and quoted out of context to an extent that a RSS spokesperson claimed Ambedkar was the first supporter of "Ghar wapasi"!!!

Next is the sudden love for Subhash Chandra bose and the hue and cry being raised over Bose relatives being spied. 

What were the ideas these leaders stood for?? Do they have anything in common with RSS Ideology??

S.C. Bose was ready to forge alliance with Nazis and Japan during WW2 only to counter the british. He considered every human as equal and had no belief in racial policies (or even the aryan link theory between India and Germanic-Europe which even gandhi had once appealed to it). But M.S. Gowalkar admired hitler's ideology of Racial purity. Gowalkar considered hindu race and culture as superior in the Indian sub continent(Hindus-tan) and  asked the non-hindus to embrace hinduism or live as foreigners without any rights. 

Bose described himself as "left-wing nationalist" in his book 'The Indian struggle' while RSS is a right-wing nationalist orgn.

Ambedkar in his book 'annihilation of caste' attacked Hinduism directly and claimed that the very foundation of caste system has to be attacked to end it. He led mass conversion of dalits to Buddhism. When he met Gandhi in 1931 he criticised Gandhi's struggle for homeland by his famous remark "Gandhiji. I have no homeland. No untouchable worth the name will be proud of this land". 
He never considered Hinduism as a home(ghar) of dalits and his ideology is completely antagonistic to Ghar Wapasi...

In the efforts to trumpet support and own up leaders who stood up against Nehru and Gandhi, I think the RSS will next distort history and start supporting the Britishers. 

Language policy of Singapore

As a matter of fact, Lee Kuan Yew, the founder of modern Singapore, who passed away recently, made 4 languages as Official Languages of Singapore-English, Tamil, Malay, Mandarin. This means every single document published by the government would be in all the 4 languages.

Singapore has a bilingual education policy where medium of instruction is English and the other language being the student's mother tongue.

This policy also has its own minor flaws. But it was the best available one to accommodate the interests of the Diverse groups.

The majority linguistic group was intelligent enough to understand that English could not be done away and they also didn't impose their own language on the minority linguistic groups. The majority linguistic group also didnt claim that identity of singapore is their language only.

Singapore was ruled by the British and got later separated from Malaysia. But they never insisted that English and Malay languages must be thrown away from their country.

Singapore is an example of how a nation can progress, (only) if diversity is accepted and accomodated

P.S.This post is just a fact which has been posted because Mr. Lee Kuan Yew passed away. It has nothing to do with any other language policy followed by any other country in the Solar System.

Churchill's prophecy

"If Indians won dominion status, A triumphant brahmin oligarchy would drive out the moslem minority and grind the untouchables into the dust. Gandhi's wealthy backers would extract their fortunes from the sweat of the poor; graft and corruption would become the rule of the day......"

These are the words of Winston Churchill in 1931 when Gandhi-Irwin pact was signed and Irwin had accepted dominion status in principle.


Looking at events like Hashimpura massacre, Bathani Tola massacre, Laxmanpur Bathe massacre and the way judicial system failed to punish the perpetrators, I feel that churchill was right to a certain extent. The triumphant brahmin oligarchy is not there. Instead we have casteism and religious intolerance. We also have the triumphant dominant caste hindus in every region, in every arm of bueraucracy and politics who will keep proving that Churchill was indeed right.

India's Daughter

I remember one politician whose name starts with 'M' and ends with 'Singh' remarking that "Boys make mistakes and so rapists should not be hanged".

An Interesting coincidence is that a rape convict whose name is 'Mukesh Singh' justifies his crime in a similar tone.

The existence of people with mentality of 'Mr.Singh' in politics itself shows that they merely reflect the mentality of our society.

In the continuum of 'patriarchy' on one extreme and 'Equality' on the other extreme, some of us are placed close to patriarchy while some are close to equality. We are in fact part of, and also responsible for every crime which happen against women.

Dowry would have ended long back if we had stopped demanding it atleast after a prohibition law was enacted. Female foetuses would not have been aborted without the connivance of doctors and parents. Secret cam videos would not have gone viral without we sharing them in Whatsapp. Serials and movies glorifying violence against women and commodifying women would not be telecast unless we enjoy watching it. Dark-skinned women would not be ridiculed in fairness cream ads if our families don't prefer for fair-skinned bride. Khap panchayats would not have been dictating the time at which women should venture out and their dress code without our approval. Religious leaders would not have been distinguishing between rural and urban rapes without our support they enjoy.

We are completely okay when a religious leader or a politician echoes our patriarchal views. But we become hysterical when a rape convict echoes the similar views!!!

The documentary 'India's Daughter' clearly shows that crime against women is a social problem, and it is the mindset of the society which is the reason for such crimes. Stringent laws alone cannot stop such crimes, a change in the mindset among us(men as well as women) is what is needed.