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 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment