Hi NL Team,

Subscriber for over 2 years here, love your work.

In the last hafta, there was lively discussion about caste and privilege. But something happened which made me a little uneasy. Abhinandan referred to tamil brahmins in dehradun as ‘pit-put ke bhaagey the..’ and Manisha giggled/sniggered and said ‘I dont feel any sympathy for tambrams..’ (or sounded like that, anand spoke at the same time so wasnt very clear what she said, but dont think i am that off the mark). As this email id makes it clear, i am an Iyer, so i do come from that background, but I am an atheist. I wasnt sure what to make of that kind of dismissive/insensitive remark on periyar’s social movement leading to tambrams leaving Tamil Nadu. It was not a violent exodus like Kashmiri Pandits or Jews fleeing different parts of the world in different times. And just like jews or KP, tambrams also figured out how to be affluent no matter where they went in india. So because they are affluent is it ok to refer to that incident in the manner it was in this podcast? I am not offended, let me emphasize that, I am just wondering with what kind of sensitivity should it be referred to in such serious conversations. As a principle, of course, mocking anything/anyone is perfectly fine. But I doubt if other such communities who migrated due to such social pressures would be referred to in such a manner. I guess its easy to say so about tambrams because they are seen as benign, not-so-aggressive group, but that makes such remarks even worse than they might have been in the speaker’s mind.

Also, Abhinandan referred to the janeyu ceremony as something very regressive. Nowadays, most such religious rituals, are just a traditional thing to do, is it really that bad? Is it that hard to enjoy rituals without the burden of belief? Like in many hindu weddings, some rituals are actually from a time when bridegroom were children, which is clearly a regressive practice. These rituals still happen when even adults get married, but that hardly means anything. Again, I am not very clear on what to make of that. Yes, caste structure is abhorrent, but I as an atheist dont find it problematic to attend such functions and still be liberal in my everyday actions. As a liberal, am I supposed to get infuriated by such practices because they hark back to a time when dalits werent allowed in temples by janeyu wearing pandits?

Prakash Iyer

————————————————————————————

Hello NL team,

Although I had decided not to write to NL again (quite a few number of times), I couldn’t resist it this week (though this time was the longest hiatus for me writing a NL email).

Welcome to this chaos, Raman sir. I wonder who reads and selects the letters/mails nowadays after Kartik left.

I, certainly like many others, missed Madhu ma’am and Mr. Vardhan’s presence in the last Hafta (131)..

Coming straight to the matter- it’s regarding shouting down Prof Ranga’s observations on the last Hafta, when he opposed a statement from Abhinandan, “All men should also be feminist, but it HAS TO BE LED BY WOMEN”..

Ranga uncle opposed it by saying that “The concept of Men-Women, Savarna-Shudras pigeon-holes people into a situation where you can be an activist/leader only for that particular group because you’ve only lived that life”.. now this point seems totally logical to my slightly scientific brain..

Going by Mr.Sekhri’s point, a person can only tell about his/her own personal experiences/ tortures.. And thereby may a Dalit person, for example, only stand for himself and not represent the whole Dalit community?

“He can be an activist, but not a leader for the cause” because he only lived his own life (this was the response given to Ranga uncle’s point)..

The people who are stuck on the position that “only someone who has lived a certain type of life, can feel what it means to be from that community” and don’t allow any form of external viewpoints are the real casteist in today’s world..

Isn’t this exactly the point which the self declared neo-liberals oppose the caste or Varna-system for? (The belief that some castes are incapable of doing certain things and should only do the stuff assigned to their castes?)

To learn from other’s experiences in addition to your own is what makes us a better human being..

now one may totally throw my arguments in garbage in the name of ‘upper caste privilege’, but that’s a criticism I’ve learned to accept over the years- people use one’s birth and early life to deny any legitimacy to his ideas and experiences..

But really, to my untrained ears this sounds pretty much like the Varna/caste system- only in the reverse direction..

The main point I want to make is this feeling of guilt for being born in the upper caste or privileged class is something that I won’t accept (and none of the self-thinking people shouldn’t accept). I didn’t have the control of my birth just like the oppressed classes (note again, ‘classes’ not the ‘castes’).

I have friends who happened to be born in very poor upper castes homes- suffered in every way possible and still labeled- almost as a slur, Savarnas. On the other hand, I have friends born in extremely backward castes but filthy rich households- they didn’t blink an eyelid before claiming the govt reservations. And I don’t blame them- why not enjoy something that’s kept there for you?

So looking at everyone with the same tinted caste based glasses- the kind which you loathe yourself, doesn’t help.

There are innumerable examples of the such upper caste/ Savarnas who are born poor in conditions where nobody pays any attention to one’s caste.. they remain poor and miserable and are not even helped by the govt because our policies, people and governments are not really interested in uplifting any backward class.. They are interested in the labeling and using the (mostly) willing backward castes/minorities for their purpose.. it totally serves their cause to keep the backward people remain backward forever..

Why does no one talk specifically about the poor and miserable Brahmins/Thakurs or other upper castes? Do they not deserve upliftment or is it not fashionable enough to discuss them? Or is it because it doesn’t appeal to ignite the ‘guilt of our births’?

It is about time one stops talking about castes- all the castes- upper, lower, forward, backward. Only then we can start thinking of everyone as a human, instead of continuing to label people and maintain the status quo..

I have personally stopped noting people’s castes long ago- Hopefully the self-declared liberals will become liberal enough one day to see through it..

I feel it is really hypocritical if one shows disdain towards the varna system for its exclusive and divisive nature; and then continue the same divisive and exclusive practices in the reverse order. But all this coming from someone who’s labeled a ‘savarna’, automatically makes it a moot point..

Thanks,

Rahul.

P.s:

1. I am still thick friends with both the examples I have listed above. Caste doesn’t matter, human beings do..

2. Madhu ma’am, I am waiting for the article or podcast on “doctors’ life in India” like most of us are waiting for the real Achhe Din? The last “let’s talk about” was almost 5 months ago.

————————————————————————————

Dear NL Hafta Team,

Before I begin, I would like to congratulate Mr. Raman Kirpal on joining the NL Team. Being a subscriber, and having suffered through Mr. Sekhri’s bastardization of a landmark Lagaan line, I feel entitled to welcome you to our madhouse, because this is family after all.

Over Hafta 130 and 131, if memory serves me right, a lot of the talk revolved around core ideas of identity; be it language, ethnicity, or the notion of who can claim leadership over a movement. The issue of who can claim leadership over a movement vs who is best suited to lead a movement, as well as its corollary, who defines the notion of ‘best suited’ lies in the core of understanding intersectionality; the intersection of race, gender, communal identity, and power dynamics of class structures.

I would tend to side with Ranga Uncle (an epithet which I’m glad to see has caught on) insofar as becoming cognizant of, and sympathetic to, the suffering of oppressed groups, can be attained through reading or watching witness testimonials and/or documentary evidence. We did not need to be Holocaust survivors to realize the demonic and barbaric nature of the crimes committed by Hitler & Co. Indeed, writings on the harrowing incidents by Holocaust scholars and historians, who were both Jewish and non-Jewish, has given us an incredible insight into the atrocities committed and how it has shaped Jewish identity in the post-war years. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but I believe he was appealing to the basic instinct of humanity which allows us to broaden our horizons in an attempt to understand suffering. We feel their pain, we study the root causes and effects of the oppression they faced, and with a vivid enough imagination can even purport to empathize. Chomsky and Foucault argue that the appeal of post-colonial literature on suppressed classes, people, minorities, and even nations lies in the writer’s ability to humanize the pain and suffering and make it approachable to wide audiences; precisely the kind of understanding which was deliberately shielded, and even rejected, by their erstwhile oppressors.

However, Ranga Uncle and I would be much more suited to rail against the Nazis and their ilk rather than reinvigorate within the Jewish community a sense of identity, purpose and desire to succeed. Because that is exactly what we would takeaway from the experience. Thus the cosmopolitan city based Indian Liberal Left is more likely to wail and rail against Brahmins, Muslims clerics, Church officials, capitalists+landowners, corrupt politicians and administrators, and Arnab Goswami (i.e. oppressors), than turn their attention to the oppressed and ask (not tell) what policy interventions can be designed to give these groups more agency and room to construct a nuanced identity not based on a dichotomy of oppressed-oppressor. Such a task can only be carried out by one who has lived through those experiences, and belongs to that group. Such invigorated leadership has to be intrinsic to the group, and has to be fashioned from the experiences of those oppressed. Otherwise all we lefty liberal types will do is blog likhna, facebook post dalna, outrage karna, and then go right back to bed.

So I must concede to Mr. Sekhri and Ms. Pande the argument that, yes, the most effective advocates, leaders, and representatives of minority communities such as Dalits, Muslim women, et al. must arise from their own identity groups. Outsiders vying for that spot will eventually meet the same fate as that which befell upon ex-NAACP spokeswoman Rachel Dolezal; a woman who was born white, but insisted on being identified as African-American. An issue which is not easily painted black and white, regardless of how obvious it may seem.

As for an outsider who led a group or nation successfully, I’d cheekily recommend a PM who served for 17 long years, J Nehru. An Englishman by any account, who led the nascent Indian state going through bit of an identity crisis itself, which is as of writing this yet unresolved.

Thanks for taking the time to read this email.

P.S. I hope there can be an episode of the Awesome and Awful ft. the Hafta Gang + Deepanjana Pal on Irrfan Khan’s Hindi Medium. I feel it would be quite worthy to be discussed in light of the struggle for cultural dominance between English, Hindi, Urdu, with your podcast’s Delhi based groups. Also, can the panel discuss what is Hindustani exactly? And the role it has paid (if any) in forming a core portion of the Northern Indian identity?

Yours,

Ayush