Author Archives: notsomeritorios

Agriculture shall be State Industry;

(1) That State shall acquire the subsisting rights in such industries, insurance and agricultural land held by private individuals, whether us owners, tenants or mortgagees and pay them compensation in the form of debenture equal to the value of his or her right in the land. Provided that in reckoning the value of land, plant or security no account shall be taken of any rise therein due to emergency, of any potential or unearned value or any value for compulsory acquisition;

(2) The State shall determine how and when the debenture holder shall be entitled to claim cash payment;

(3) The debenture shall be transferable and inheritable property but neither the debenture holder nor the transferee from the original holder nor his heir shall be entitled to claim the return of the land or interest in any industrial concern acquired by the State or be entitled to deal with it in any way;

(4) The debenture-holder shall be entitled to interest on his debenture at such rate as may be defined by law, to be paid by the State in cash or in kind as the State may deem fit;

(5) Agricultural industry shall be organized on the following basis:

(i) The State shall divide the land acquired into farms of standard size and let out the farms for cultivation to residents of the village as tenants (made up of group of families) to cultivate on the following conditions:

(a) (a)The farm shall be cultivated as a collective farm ;

(b) (b)The farm shall be cultivated in accordance with rules and directions issued by Government;

(c) The tenants shall share among themselves in the manner prescribed the produce of the farm left after the payment of charges properly leviable on the farm.

(ii) The land shall be let out to villagers without distinction of caste or creed and in such manner that there will be no landlord, no tenant and no landless
labourer ;

(iii) It shall be the obligation of the State to finance the cultivation of the collective farms by the supply of water, draft animals, implements, manure, seeds, etc.;

(iv) The State shall be entitled to—

(a) (a) to levy the following charges on the produce of the farm:

(ii) The land shall be let out to villagers without distinction of caste or creed and in such manner that there will be no landlord, no tenant and no landless labourer ;

(iii) It shall be the obligation of the State to finance the cultivation of the collective farms by the supply of water, draft animals, implements, manure, seeds, etc.;

(iv) The State shall be entitled to—

(a) (a) to levy the following charges on the produce of the farm:

(i) a portion for land revenue;

(ii) a portion to pay the debenture-holders;

(iii) a portion to pay for the use of capital goods supplied; and

(b) (b) to prescribe penalties against tenants who break the conditions of
tenancy or wilfully neglect to make the best use of the means of cultivation offered by the State or otherwise act prejudicially to the scheme of collective farming;

Excerpt taken from “States and Minorities” written by Dr BR Ambedkar

ऐसे लोगों की कमी नहीं है जो अछूतों की दयनीय स्थिति से दुखी हो यह चिल्लाकर अपना जी हल्का करते फिरते हैं कि ‘हमें अछूतों के लिए कुछ करना चाहिए।’ लेकिन इस समस्या को जो लोग हल करना चाहते हैं, उनमें से शायद ही कोई ऐसा व्यक्ति हो जो यह कहता हो कि “हमें सवर्ण हिंदुओं को बदलने के लिए भी कुछ करना चाहिए।’ यह धारणा बनी हुई है कि अगर किसी का सुधार होना है तो वह अछूतों का ही होना है। अगर कुछ किया जाना है तो वह अछूतों के प्रति किया जाना है और अगर अछूतों को सुधार दिया जाए, तब छुआछूत की भावना मिट जाएगी। सवर्णों के बारे में कुछ भी नहीं किया जाना है। उनकी भावनाएं, आचार-विचार और आदर्श उच्च हैं। वे पूर्ण हैं, उनमें कहीं भी कोई खोट नहीं है। क्या यह धारणा उचित है? यह धारणा उचित हो या अनुचित, लेकिन हिंदू इसमें कोई परिवर्तन नहीं चाहते? उन्हें इस धारणा का सबसे बड़ा लाभ यह है कि वे इस बात से आश्वस्त हैं कि वे अछूतों की समस्या के लिए बिल्कुल भी उत्तरदायी नहीं हैं।”

~ अछूत अथवा भारत की बहिष्कृत बस्तियों के प्राणी में बाबा साहेब अंबेडकर

भारत एक अजीब देश है और पश्चम वासियों को पूर्व वासी भारत के सम्मोहन ने हमेशा हैरान किया है। पश्चिम वासी समाजशास्त्रियों ने भारतीय समाज का गहनता से अध्ययन किया है, ऐसा समाज जो प्रमुखता से जाती प्रधान समाज है।

अल बरूनी से लेकर फाहियान, एबे दूब्वाह से लेकर लुई दूमों, सूसन बेली से लेकर निकोलस डर्क्स, कई पाश्चात्य समाजशास्त्री व बुद्धिजीवियों ने हिंदू सामाजिक व्यवस्था को समझाने व प्रतिपादित करने के कई प्रयास किए हैं। इन सभी ने अपने अपने मूलभूत प्रस्तावों के जरिए काफी प्रयास किए हैं जाती के प्रश्न को समझने व समझाने में परंतु ये सभी अनिवार्य रूप से अछूतों के उत्थान के लिए कोई विशेष समाधान देने में असमर्थ रहे हैं।

ऐसा क्यों है कि सवर्णों द्वारा किए जाने वाले सुधार का प्रमुख केंद्र अछूत ही रहते हैं? इस बात पर ध्यान क्यों नहीं दिया जाता है कि सुधार की जरूरत सवर्णों को है। सवर्णों को मानवता सिखाई जानी चाहिए। सुधार का केंद्र बिंदु अछूत न होकर सवर्ण होने चाहिए।

कभी कभी व ज्यादा से ज्यादा, उदार व प्रगतिशील सवर्ण अगर कुछ सोच सकता है तो वह अछूतों का तारणहार बनने की भावना तक ही सीमित है, लेकिन उसके ऐसा सोचने से समाज की मौजूदा स्थिति में रत्ती भर भी बदलाव नहीं आता।

अभी हाल ही में उच्च न्यायालय ने अपने एक फैंसले में अनुसूचित जाति व जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम में दर्ज एक मुकदमे को खारिज कर दिया। ऐसा करने में उच्च न्यायालय ने भारतीय संविधान के अनुच्छेद 142 द्वारा उसको दिए गए विशेषाधिकार का उपयोग किया।

न्यायालय ने अपने निर्णय में यह कहा की दोषी ने दलित महिला को, जो उसकी पड़ोसी भी है, उन दोनों के बीच चल रहे संपत्ति विवाद के कारण कुंठा में आकर गाली दी।

यह तो अच्छी तरह से सब को मालूम है कि ऐतिहासिक दृष्टि से देखा जाए तो हिंदू धर्म शास्त्र मनु स्मृति के अनुसार अछूतों को धन संपदा, संपत्ति व जमीन के अधिग्रहण का अधिकार नहीं था। क्या उच्च न्यायालय के न्यायाधीशों को यह बिलकुल भी नहीं सूझा कि एक अछूत और सवर्ण के बीच हुए संपत्ति विवाद में जातिवादी मानसिकता का प्रच्छन भाव भी हो सकता है।

उस सवर्ण दोषी की वह कुंठा या कहें निराशा कहीं बाहर से नहीं आई। वह अछूतों के प्रति उसकी तिरस्कार व ईर्ष्या की भावना को दर्शाता है।

क्या न्यायधीशो का यह अपेक्षा करना की कोई भी अछूत अपमानजनक जातिवादी टिप्पणियों को सिर्फ इसलिए सुनता रहे क्योंकि कोई सवर्ण निराश है या कुंठित है, नैतिक रूप से अनुचित नहीं है?

नाजी पूर्व यूरोप में यहूदियों के नाम उपहास के तौर पर रखे जाते थे। उनके नाम मखौल का पात्र रहते थे। कोई ऐसा सोच सकता है कि केवल किसी व्यक्ति का गाली से भरे शब्दों से उसका मजाक बनाने व उसकी पूरी बिरादरी का अपमान करने में इतनी शक्ति कहां हो सकती की उस व्यक्ति व उसकी पूरी बिरादरी की जिंदगियां ही तबाह कर दें। परंतु आज पूरी दुनिया यह देख व जान चुकी है कि कैसे यहूदियों के प्रति तिरस्कार व निरादर की भावना, नाजी जर्मनी के कुख्यात तानाशाह हिटलर के शासन में यहूदियों के नरसंहार में तब्दील हो गई।

क्या भारत इसी बात का इंतजार कर रहा है कि भविष्य में कोई जातिवादी श्रेष्ठता में विश्वास रखने वाला तानाशाह आए और अछूतों का भी वही हश्र हो जो यहूदियों का हिटलर के राज में हुआ?

अगर ऐसा नहीं है तो फिर भारत सरकार की ऐसी कोई पुख्ता नीति क्यों नही है जो इस पर बात का ध्यान रखे कि अछूतों की गरिमा की इज्जत की जानी चाहिए। ऐसे सवर्ण जो जातिवादी मानसिकता से ग्रसित हैं, उनको ऐसी शिक्षा क्यों नही दी जाती की वह अपने घरों में सिखाए गए जातिवादी मूल्यों को त्याग दें, अछूतों के प्रति संवेदनशील बनें और एक बेहतर इंसान बनें।

भारतीय शिक्षा प्रणाली में कोई ऐसा पाठ्यक्रम क्यों नही है जो विद्यार्थियों को अछूतों के प्रति होते आए और वर्तमान में हो रहे अत्याचारों के बारे में अवगत करवाए, भले ही वो अत्याचार केवल मौखिक जातिसूचक गालियां हो, जानलेवा हमले हों या फिर जान से मार देना।

Individual consciousness and Collective consciousness are two different ideas.

Both can exist independent to each other. As the individual is both independent of society and a part of the society at the same time.

Collection of Individuals is not a Society. The gap that remains between a Collection of Individuals and the Society is where the magic lies.

Thus it is worth examining as to what extent individual consciousness can affect collective consciousness.

Has it ever happened in History?

Individual consciousness has always existed but then what has been the cause that it has not been able to over power the collective consciousness of the Hindu Caste Society? Should we focus on that gap where the magic lies?

Individuals with a consciousness antithetical to the collective consciousness of the caste order have come and gone but the untouchables have remained Untouchables. So how imperative it is to admire individual consciousness.

Should we take refuge in the idea that sooner or later individual consciousness will influence the collective consciousness and the conscience of the entire Society will change?

Are we to keep believing in lone warriors? Won’t that create a line of prophets with the masses seeking refuge in the messiahs?

Do we need messiahs or a society where there is no need for any messiah?

Isn’t it better, as Buddha propounded to have a sangha?

Loyalty of any struggle is derived from the people who are a part of that struggle. Undue loyalty to individuals, organisations representing the people leads to hero worship. Hero worship is what derails the struggle as it shifts the loyalty of the struggle to the people from the people to certain individuals, certain organisations. There is nothing above the people. India is India later, but People of India first.

Many individuals who are part of the struggle fall prey to this idea of being loyal to certain individuals and organisations and it can be pretty evidently seen in their beliefs and opinions as well as their actions.

Their vantage point is the Vantage point of those individuals and organisations to whom their loyalty lies. Their vision is constricted and their efforts simply an excercise in creating a space for the individuals and organisations they are affiliated to.

They ideate keeping in mind their location as an individual and not as an individual who is among the people.

He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past” ~ George Orwell in 1984.

Ever since the inception and evolution of mankind into a ‘modern human’ it has ever been the curiosity of the human mind to look around the surroundings in order to comprehend the esoteric and arcane nature of ‘human existence’ and make sense out of ‘everything’ including ‘nothing’. This idea of looking towards every other phenomenon from our frame of reference stems from the idea put forward by Daniel Kahneman, “the fact that inner workings of human mind have ever been irrational and it is the undying spirit of our ‘grey cells’ which makes us to give meanings to our existence and the ‘cradle’ of our very existence itself.”

As put up by Engels in his ‘dialectics of nature’, he has hypothesised with astounding accuracy that the need for ‘media’ for ‘exchange of information’ has been there since the very beginning of human existence. He states that now that the humans were able to stand in an erect posture and walk around straight with their forearms not limited to aid them in perambulating, with the thumbs of their hands detached, the need arose as to how to communicate with fellow human beings and ask for succour in going about the ‘bare necessities of life’. This made it possible for the development of vocal cords to an extent, where humans were able to generate sounds of certain frequencies which were something more than just mere gestures.

This was the advent of what will later be making ‘man’ the most gregarious creation of this ‘cosmos’. Like many other things, gregariousness has proven to be a virtue of single largest importance for ‘man’. Subsequently this unintelligible speech found its way into a more refined form of oral gestures paving way for the traditions ‘oral traditions’ of communication and preserving our present experiences which will later come to be known as ‘our past’. The ‘oral’ medium of ‘information exchange’ was subject to getting lost into an oblivion during that epoch of humankind no such thing as a phonograph or any sound storing devices might have existed.

The only natural solution of this conundrum of archiving was ‘rote learning and memorisation’ of each and every bits and pieces of information more often than not forcefully and by attaching with it a sense of ‘divinity’ in order to avoid any mistake of losing out on anything important worth archiving. This was the first the first attempt to historicise ‘our past’ and the effective use of ‘media’ to subsequently pass on information to succeeding generations i.e. to say that it was a mode of ‘information exchange’ which was inherently hereditary. The best example of such a ‘media’ is the ‘Vedic’ way of life as envisioned by the ‘brahmins’ of South Asia who claimed for themselves and by themselves as the divinity itself on the Earth, who sprang out from the mouth of the creator himself, their lord, ‘Brahma’.

As far as the ‘Vedic’ way of life in the Ganga Jamuna Doab has been comprehended, all it consisted and initially based upon was the ‘personal narratives’ of the priestly caste, ‘the brahmins’ in invoking and praising their ‘Lords’ for their own well being on the Earth. Namely these ‘Lords’ were ‘Indra’, ‘Agni’ and ‘Soma’ as these three are mentioned more numerous than others in the ‘Rig Veda’.

Now the question that can be asked is, how can one say that these ‘hymns’ praising the ‘Lords’ were acting as ‘media’? And that too not just a form of media whose function was limited to dissemination of archived information, but acted more often as a ‘sinister’ way of manipulating and appropriating ‘Indigenous’ and ‘Dravidian’ cultures which were already in place prior to the establishment of a ‘Vedic’ order.

There are linguistic evidences to support this point of view of ‘media’ acting as an ‘alternate’ or even maybe the ‘legal penal code’ for the ‘society as a whole’ (society as a whole here takes into account the inhabitants who came directly into the folds of the chaturvarnya, and even those who were outside of this mode of ‘social stratification’ and were later collectively came to be known as the ‘panchamas’ or the fifth varna).

To quote Romila Thapar from one of her lectures presented via All India Radio, “It has been suggested, therefore, that the later Vedic literature represents a cultural mingling of the speakers of the Indo-European language with those already settled in these areas. The linguistic evidence strongly suggests this idea. It is interesting that there are words of Dravidian origin in the Rig Veda.”

Romila Thapar has cited and corroborated this fact from T Borrow’s Sanskrit and MB Emanuel’s Collected papers.

Why Romila Thapar refers to this phenomenon of linguistic similarity as mere ‘cultural mingling’ should be kept aside for the time being so as to restrict myself to the interplay of ‘History’ and ‘Media’ and hypothesise my claim that the personal narratives of the ‘bhudevs’ were indeed altogether a sinister act of manipulation and appropriation of indigenous and Dravidian cultures.

In one of the hymns of mandal IV of the Rig Veda is the mention of the conquest of Vritra by Indra. While Indra was personification of the ‘Rain’ i.e. to say ‘available water resources’, Vritra personified drought. Vritra is referred to as a ‘demon-serpent king’ who took control of the ‘freshwater resources’ on the top of a mountain and was later defeated by Indra. This hymn states that possession of ‘water’ by this demon-serpent king rendered it ‘poisonous’.

Now if one looks at this description from a non-vedic lens and scrutinises it bit by bit, he or she can propose that the demon king represented some indigenous kingdom for whom freshwater was a natural resource essential for their survival and maybe it was Indra who unjustly seized that important resource from Vritra. This can also be construed from the fact that while in possession of Vritra, that resource was rendered poisonous. Here, poison may subtly connote the notions of purity and profanity, which have been inherent in vedic philosophy and have always been used to demean, subjugate and humiliate indigenous cultures. All this can be attributed to the effective use of ‘media’ to propagate ‘cultural hegemony’.

इतिहास में दिवाली का सबसे प्राचीनतम वर्णन नीलमत पुराण में मिलता है, जो कश्मीर में पांचवी व आठवी शताब्दी ईसा के बाद रची गई थी।

नीलमत पुराण में “दीपमाला” त्यौहार का विस्तार में जिक्र है। इसके अनुसार इस त्यौहार के दिन चारो तरफ प्रकाश व रोशनी का इंतजाम रहता है, फूलों की माला द्वारा घरों को सुसज्जित किया जाता है, ब्राह्मणों, रिश्तेदारों व आश्रितों के साथ भोज किया जाता है, जुआ खेला जाता है, संगीत सुना जाता है, औरतों की संगत में रात व्यतीत की जाती है, महंगे कपड़े व आभूषण पहने जाते हैं, दोस्तों, रिश्तेदारों, ब्राह्मणों व नौकरों को कपड़े दान दिए जाते हैं।

इस पुराण में यह भी वर्णित है कि दीपमाला त्यौहार कार्तिक मास की अमावस्या को मनाया जाता है!

यह इस बात की और इशारा करता है कि आज दिवाली के साथ जो राम के अयोध्या वापिस लौटने की कथा जोड़ी गई है वह कोरी कल्पना है और यह काफी हद तक संभव है की यह कथा पुष्यमित्र शुंग की याद में गड़ी गई हो, क्योंकि उसने ब्राह्मण धर्म का राज स्थापित किया था।

दिवाली अंततः एक ब्राह्मणवादी त्यौहार रहा है और इस समय की बाकी ब्राह्मणवादी रीतियों की तरह, यह भी बौद्ध धम्म का कभी हिस्सा नहीं रहा है।

फिर भी, कई जातियों में, खास तौर से तथाकित निचली जातियों में,  दिवाली के आस पास के पांच दिनों में, कई ऐसी रीतियों का पालन होता रहा है जिस से ऐसा प्रतीत हो सकता है दीवाली सिर्फ ब्राह्मणवादी त्यौहार नहीं था।

यह इस बात की और भी इशारा करता है कि ब्राह्मणों द्वारा दीवाली के लिए कैलेंडर में जो दिन चुने गए थे वह इन निचली जातियों के स्थानीय रीति रिवाजों से प्रेरित थे।

लेकिन इस बात को भी नकारा नहीं जा सकता की निचली जातियों के स्थानीय रीति रिवाज, संस्कृतिकरण का शिकार थे और ब्राह्मणवादी व्यवस्था में जगह बनाने के लिए उन्होंने दिवाली से संबंधित रीति रिवाज अपनाने शुरू किए हो। क्योंकि प्रभुत्व वर्ग का प्रभाव जाने अंजाने शोषित वर्ग पर आ ही जाता है! 

इन बातों की पुष्टि इसलिए होती है क्योंकि इतिहास में कोली, भील व अन्य निचली जातियों का वर्णन है की कैसे वो दीवाली के सप्ताह के दौरान मांस का सेवन करते थे और श्मशान में मिट्टी के दिए जलाते थे!

जहां तक मुझे मालूम है (आप मुझे बता सकते हैं अगर मैं गलत हूं तो), बौद्ध धम्म ब्राह्मणवादी रीति रिवाजों से स्पष्ट दूरी बनाए रखता था और स्थानीय रीति रिवाज जो कई जातियों में व्याप्त थे उनसे भी प्रभावित नहीं था। बौद्ध धम्म की प्राक्कल्पना ही तार्किक विचारों में निहित थी। तो यह काफी हद तक संभव है की बौद्ध धम्म में दीवाली जैसा कोई त्यौहार नहीं था!

ऐसे स्पष्ट संदर्भ मौजूद हैं जो यह बतलाते है की दीवाली जैनों का भी प्रमुख त्यौहार था। जैन दीवाली के दिन को भगवान महावीर के मोक्ष प्राप्ति के दिवस के रूप में मनाते आए हैं। ऐसे ही धनतेरस भी जैनों के लिए प्रमुख दिनों में से एक था। धनतेरस व्यापारिक समुदायों में प्रमुखता से मनाया जाता रहा है और उस समय (आज भी), जैन धर्म व्यापारिक समुदायों में खास तौर पर प्रचलित था।

जहां तक दीए जलाने की बात है तो उन दिनों जाहिर तौर पे यह सबसे प्रचलित तरीका रहा होगा किसी भी प्रमुख दिवस को मनाने का, क्योंकि उन दिनों प्रकाश का स्त्रोत दिए ही थे। तो इसलिए काफी निचली जातियों में भी दिए जलाने की परंपरा बरकरार रही है, और इसका सीधे तौर से यह मतलब नहीं है की वो ब्राह्मण धर्म से प्रभावित थे।

The earliest known literary reference for Diwali is found in Neelmat Purana, composed in Kashmir around 5th to 8th Century AD.

Neelmat Purana composed in Kashmir
describes in detail the “Deepmala”
festival with the following features : –
All-round illuminations, hoisting up of festoons, Feasting with Brahmins, relatives and dependents, Gambling, Music, Passing the night in the company of ladies,Wearing of rich apparel and jewels, Presenting new garments to friends, relatives, Brahmans and the servants.

It also mentions the day of occasion as the new moon day of the Kartika month of the Hindu Lunar Calendar.

This also point to the fact that the myth of Rama associated with Diwali is a later construction and it’s possible that it is a celebratory eulogy of Pushyamitra Sunga upholding the Brahmanical order in society.

Diwali has been a prominently brahmanic festival, and like most of the brahmanic practises of the time, it was never a part of the Buddhist faith.

However, among various castes there were similar observations of some rituals on the 5 days of diwali in Ashwin and Kartik month of “Hindu” Lunar calendar.

This might point to the fact that the days chosen for Diwali by the Brahmans were somewhat taken from the local cultures already having feasts or totem worships.

But at the same time we can not rule out that the local cultures were in a way “sanskritising” themselves in order to claim legitimacy in the brahmanic order because there are references to Kolis, Bhils and other lower castes eating meat and lighting earthen lamps in corpses yards during this 5 day week long festival.

As far as it is known to me ( anyone can point out if I am wrong), mostly Buddhism at that time has remained aloof and maintained distance from local cultural and ritual practices, which had elements of Brahmanic order in them. So it is highly likely that there was no diwali in Buddhism.

There are clear references to Jains celebrating Diwali as the day of Mahavira attaining moksha/nirvana and the festival of Dhanteras as a prominently mercantile community festival, as Jainism at that time was a prominent religion among the mercantile communities of that time.

As far as lighting lamps is concerned, it is to be understood that in those times it was the only plausible and obvious way of celebrating grand occasions, probably the reason that many castes were observing the same ritual of lighting lamps but that doesn’t necessarily points to the fact that they were celebrating Diwali, as per the Brahmanical mores.

“It is usual to hear all those who feel moved by the deplorable condition of the Untouchables unburden themselves by uttering the cry “We must do something for the Untouchables”. One seldom hears any of the persons interested in the problem saying ‘Let us do something to change the Touchable Hindu’. It is invariably assumed that the object to be reclaimed is the Untouchables. If there is to be a Mission, it must be to the Untouchables and if the Untouchables can be cured, untouchability will vanish. Nothing requires to be done to the Touchable. He is sound in mind, manners and morals. He is whole, there is nothing wrong with him. Is this assumption correct? Whether correct or not, the Hindus like to cling to it. The assumption has the supreme merit of satisfying themselves that they are not responsible for the problem of the Untouchables. “

– Dr BR Ambedkar in Untouchables or The Children of India’s Ghetto


India is a peculiar country and for the Occidentals, the Oriental fascination of India has always amazed them. There have been numerous sociological insights developed by the Occidentals in understanding Indian society, which is primarily a Society of Castes.

From Alberuni to Fa Hsien, Abbe Dubois to Lois Dumont, Susan Bayly to Nicolas Dirks, western intellectuals have tried to explain and enunciate the enigma that is the Hindu Social Order. All of them with their own intrinsic approaches have put in much effort but have invariably failed to offer any particular solutions to emancipate the untouchables, the proverbial victims of the Hindu Social Order.

Why is it that the Upper Caste gaze of reforms always focuses on the Untouchables? Why is there no focus on as to how it is the Upper Castes themselves that need to be reformed, that need to be taught to believe in humanity? When will there be a shift in the gaze?

At best and at times the best the Upper Caste liberal progressive minds happen to do is to act as saviours of the untouchables which doesn’t shake the status quo even an inch.

Recently in a judgement the Supreme Court quashed a case registered under SC ST POA Act by using its special power under Article 142 of the Indian constitution. The court in its ruling observed that the accused abused the SC woman out of frustration arising out of a property dispute between him and the woman who are neighbours.

It’s a well known fact that historically untouchables have not been allowed to amass wealth, land or property as per the Hindu Dharma Shastra Manusmriti. Didn’t it occur to the judges of the Supreme Court that a property dispute between an untouchable and an upper caste can have casteist undertones. That frustration is not coming out of nowhere. It is the expression of jealousy and contempt for the untouchables.

Isn’t it unjust and morally wrong on the part of the judges to expect the untouchables to keep listening to humiliating casteist comments just because the upper caste persons are frustrated?

The Jews were derisively named and their names were an object of mockery in pre Nazi Europe. One might think that mere words of abuse are not that potent to destroy lives of any group of persons. But the world now knows how that disrespect and contempt for the Jews culminated into the Holocaust under the notorious Nazi Leader Hitler.

Is India waiting for the same fate for the untouchables under any future caste supremacist leader? If not then why is there no policy of the Indian State that speaks about how the dignity of the untouchables is to be respected and any upper castes need to be sensitised and taught to unlearn the casteist values they are taught in their households. Why is there no curriculum in the Indian education system that makes the students aware of the wrongs done on the untouchables throughout history and continuing even today, be it mere verbal abuses or physical assaults?

“The assertion by the individual of his own opinions and beliefs, his own independence and interest as over against group standards, group authority and group interests is the beginning of all reform. But whether the reform will continue depends upon what scope the group affords for such individual assertion. If the group is tolerant and fair-minded in dealing with such individuals they will continue to assert and in the end succeed in converting their fellows. On the other hand if the group is intolerant and does not bother about the means it adopts to stifle such individuals they will perish and the reform will die out.”

~ Dr BR Ambedkar in Annihilation of Caste

Cinema is an interesting art form. It juxtaposes the fictional with the real and offers an insight into the society we live. Just as society might be largely regressive, it will be reflected in the Cinema it produces, most of it will be regressive. Although as always there might be some progressive elements bin any society and that might also be reflected in some cinematic pieces.

TJ Ganavel’s Jai Bhim starring Suriya is a remarkable adaptation of the real life events of a particular case of police brutality on tribals in Tamilnadu. The movie is a commendable feat which has set a new high for the regional as well as national cinema (I despise the usage of the term regional cinema, but for the sake of identification let’s keep it that way)

The movie is being praised among the liberal progressive fraternity for its heart wrenching portrayal of injustice and torture meted out on the tribals by the Police. It gives hope that as long as there are men of good heart in our society, there is always a possibility of fighting for a just cause.

Now to keep aside the appreciation of the movie, it should be pointed out that it will be a folly to over emphasise on the movie as a beacon of hope for the oppressed.

A system designed to fail many can never be praised for the success of a few. Justice for an individual can not be a marker for the belief in the system that everyone gets justice.

How cunningly the discourse is set that the torture inflicted on tribals is an act of Police Brutality. Is the Police an abstraction? Aren’t the members of the police force recruited from the very society? How can then it be said that it is an act of Police Brutality?

It is an onslaught of Caste supremacist values on the marginalised people. As James Baldwin said that a even mob is not disoriented it inflicts the will of the ruling class then how can an organised militia, the police be not furthering the ruling class dispositions?

Justice is best served on a collective level and not an individual level. Exceptions are not the rules. The real life incident on which Jai Bhim is based is one such exception in a system which is rigged against the oppressed. The protagonist of the movie Sengani gets justice delivered, but what about thousands of other Senganis who lose out before the get to see the justice delivered to them.

If we talk only about police brutality, then in last three years 5221 people died in judicial custody in India. How many of them got justice served?

As Martin Luther King Jr. said “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” we can interpret that injustice to even an individual is a threat to justice for the entire society.

Justice is a democratic ideal. It can not be praised as an exception. Exceptions are not the rules. Even a single instance of justice not being served makes all other acts of Justice irrelevant.

Justice serves well when injustice is an exception.

Caste is a like a meandering river. A river never stops flowing. It only dries up and a river never dries if the source of its water are perennial.

The source of this river that is Caste are the Scriptures as Ambedkar observed in Annihilation of Caste. Individual has limitations and it can not go beyond a certain limit against the Caste order. The order strikes back.

When the source of the trouble of Indian oppressed is a collective effort of the Hindu society, how can individuals be seen as beacons of hope?

Ambedkar has pointed out in his works that individual is non existent in hindu society. He is bound by customs of the society, if we transgresses them he is bound to be punished. Anything that is a collective effort to disrobe human dignity can only be fought collectively.

So to conclude when the entire collective conscience of the society is against you, you can not seek salvage in an Individual.

“Conspicuous Corruption”

When someone with a higher status uses it to indulge in illicit posession of illegal goods which are rare in order to gain status points.

Most of the Corruption that we don’t see is Conspicuous Corruption!

Conspicuous Corruption mostly hides within plain sight inconspicuously by virtue of ruling class’ connivance among each other.

What happenes then is that the sub alterns are seen as “most corrupt” as their corruption is visible.

This is what happened with Ashish Nandy when he said SC ST officers are the most corrupt He is a famous psychoanalysis scholar and still can’t think over it.