Hello!

In case this is read aloud, would you keep my identity anonymous please? Thanks.

From a subscriber, listener, reader and someone with a week off, comes a response to the last two haftas.

Firstly, the Maratha Morcha. I witnessed the Morcha in Pune last year and it was a sight to behold. Throngs of people marching through the city in total peace and with total discipline. It was not a farmer’s agitation though, both last year and this year, the demands were basically justice for the 2016 Kopardi rape and murder case, and reservation and sops for Maratha candidates – in education and jobs – which the chief minister has agreed to meet. The principle behind a show of strength in numbers to make political demands seems a little troubling…

Regarding the firing of the Google employee – I read the memo out of sheer curiosity when the news struck. There were some interesting points to be made, and as Google have acknowledged, much of what is written in there contains food for thought. However the clincher for his firing was the fact that he made some ill informed and silly claims about women (a large proportion of Google employees and his colleagues) being ‘biologically predisposed to being more neurotic and less inclined to be assertive’ – this is where he violated the code of conduct. Yes, we humans are sexually dimorphic. We exhibit differences in physicality, anatomy and even behavior to a certain extent, based on our gender. But this fact also gives a cover of pseudo-reasonableness to those who want to reach false conclusions, ignoring factors like education, opportunity and social conditioning. His dismissal was inevitable, but I do think that Google should do more to publicly discuss the issues and ideas thrown up by this. There is growing resentment against the PC culture in the public arena and in such times – more dialogue and less silencing please.

I was a little surprised to hear Mr. Raman say that ‘physical work is automated, and as far as intelligent work goes women are better at it’! This seems neither true, nor a particularly fair statement to make! And I’m a woman!

Regarding identity politics and leadership – Leadership is required on different fronts for any moral principle to be realised, and that takes time. When it comes to social reform there have been examples of people who have led the cause for a community they may not necessarily be part of, for example, Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Govind Ranade, Vinoba Bhave, all these individuals came from so called Brahmin families but did extensive work to eradicate caste and gender discrimination and for land reform (Bhoodaan movement).. Mahatma Phule and Savitribai Phule started schools for so called ‘untouchable’ children even though they did not belong to this community. These people recognised social injustices, had the proclivity to fight them, and were in a position to do something about it. But, when it comes to mass mobilization, when it comes to leading the people, it is a matter of common sense that someone who belongs to a tradition or a community will fare better.

MLK had to be black to understand the black experience, as well as get enough traction as a leader, irrespective of his understanding. The fact that Charles Andrews couldn’t have led the struggle for Indian independence has equally to do with the perception of the people he was to lead, as the fact that he just didn’t have the embodied experience of being a second class citizen in a colonised state. I do think though, that if pushed to the extreme, a stridently exclusive stance might simply lead people into division rather than a better more reformed and egalitarian society.

I don’t have a religion, don’t believe there is a god/s, and view our caste history with utmost scorn, but my personal beliefs cannot take away from the fact that by sheer accident of birth, I was born into a so called upper caste family in India, and have experienced all the benefits and/or social preconceptions that come with that.

Regarding social ceremonies – my instinct is to agree with Abhinandan, but I’m not entirely sure I do and here’s why – There are two aspects to cultural ceremonies – one is the sociopolitical context of the particular identity group and the second is the personal religious/social/cultural aspect. For an analogy let’s take the Christian baptism – which, if someone wanted to view it politically, could be seen as a reminder of the centuries of violence unleashed around the world on ‘pagans’, ‘witches’, ‘heretics’, non Christians, sometimes literally for refusing to undergo a Christian baptism; or, say, a symbol of a religious system which is responsible for the withholding of birth control, and therefore the spread of HIV, and therefore needless deaths, in Africa and elsewhere. But I think it is absurd to see a baptism as a symbol of all this when in fact parents baptising their child are usually doing it for reasons of faith, sense of community and tradition/identity.

There are food cultures that are caste/community specific, there are certain pieces of clothing that are caste/community specific (berating someone for wearing a tilak? Come on) social stratification is embedded in culture and is not limited to any particular caste. I think I agree with Mr Raman, judging people by their actions rather than their cultural identity seems like the more sensible view, simply because otherwise this could be a slippery slope.

The second and more important reason is that I think this is the wrong approach is that cultural identity runs deep with most people, and putting people on the defensive about their core identity can never be fruitful as far as negotiated progress is concerned.

Now on a lighter note, nepotism – It’s a funny thing nepotism. Can any of us think back of a time when we got an opportunity or benefited in any small way because of someone we know? A little word here, a little nudge there? 🙂 I think Kangana Ranaut herself employs her sister as her manager? Shahrukh Khan may have been an outsider but has no qualms saying his children will become actors and needless to say, he will make it happen for them. Yes it’s rife everywhere, but maybe more widespread in Asian societies because we have such tight knit and extensive family ties to this day. What we usually lack is the implementation of laws, in this case strong equal opportunity regulation in all commercial enterprises… But even so, as long as humans meet other humans and form bonds, it would be impossible to get rid of this thing.

Anyway, apologies for droning on for so long..

Found the media rumble discussions most enjoyable. Welcome to the new panelists. Abhinandan, I know you are a busy man but do some I agree interviews, go on! 🙂

Warm wishes and thanks.

————————————————————————————

Dear NL Team,

The last few podcast have focused a lot on caste, Hinduism, religion and tradition. I felt the views expressed had bias and were one dimensional ( since majority of the NL panelist claim to be Atheist may be it lacks alternate perspective).

As a sideline Hindu (somebody who is comfortable practicing some aspects Hindu religion yet uncomfortable Publicly brandishing Hindu identity), I though the discussion were not fair to people like me. Of late I have seen a lot of learned people viewing Hindu traditions and customs with a narrow and time limited perspective. Hafta 132 started with a comment by Anand R “That Aabhinandan has finally agreed to protect someone”. The inherent assumption was that Raksha bandhan means Brother protecting sister. That I believe is a narrow perspective based on the recent historical context of 16th century Rani Karnavati and mughal emperor Humayun. The word Raksha Bandhan means protective band/string. In Indian traditions, typically talisman is tied for protection of a person like an amulet. So it would not be unbelievable to  assume that the tradition probably originated with Sisters tying Rakhi on brother for their protection. Over years it changed to protection of Sister. I have always believed it to be the former, and recently when my 11 year old son inquired about the tradition his response to my explanation further broadened my views. He asked if my sister (Kichu) is wishing for good health and safety of me why shouldn’t I wish the same for her and tie her rakhi as well. And so started the tradition in our household of brother reciprocating by tying rakhi on his sister.

It is easy to criticize and view traditions in current context and standards. Traditions and customs need to keep pace with time and it is the change that we bring in as practitioners of faith or custom that keeps them alive. It is easier to condemn Rakshabandhan as regressive practice, yet in doing so we lose out on celebration of a beautiful relationship – between a brother and a sister. I am not aware of any other major culture or religion which celebrates same.

Similarly the discussions around Janeu ceremony and marriage again had the same viewpoint – one of shunning the practise and placing importance on acts rather than intent. Janeu ceremony is meant to signify transition of boy from a child to one entering formal education. It is  unfortunate that the tradition was restricted to the upper caste (not just Brahmins) and over centuries got associated with regressive and oppressive form of Hindu religion. I have attended a few ceremonies where Janeu has been performed for Boy & Girl of various caste. The ceremony shouldnot and cannot be restricted to a caste or sex. However rather than accept and broaden this tradition many decide to abandon and condemn.

One of the often criticised aspect of Hindu religion are marriage ceremonies where the mantra as per the pandit were primarily justified practices like dowry and promoted patriarchal view of the society. However my marriage ceremony conducted by an 80 year old Aarya Samaj pandit was about our duties to each other, our respective families and to the society , had none of the regressive elements that would outrage my fiercely independent spouse.

Yet to just focus on caste alone and viewing entire religion with just this aspect is unfair. And it stops us from exploring other aspects which are relevant and progressive even if we apply today’s standards of morality.

Each religion has had its flaws and dark period. If for Hinduism it was caste practice, for Christanity it was Racism, for Islam it is gender. The discrimination based on Race evolved and got sanction from Church and religion to justify conquests of Caucasian race over blacks. As late as 1960’s separate church for blacks were the norm (black church still continue like separate temples for dalits even though by law neither can be stopped from attending others). While Hinduism and caste are almost used as synonyms Christianity association with Racism is far muted. This probably is because of reforms and changes done on larger scale compared to Hinduism.

It is for the practicing Hindu to voice against caste and ensure that the religion is de-linked from it completely. (One of the radical ways same could be achieved is by abolishing usage of Surnames – take away link with the caste as added benefit remove the need for a son to take forward the family name).

The danger in using  Anand R logic of temples as reminders of injustice of centuries is that if applied in same way across religions/countries we would have nothing historical to admire. Many churches in Europe,Latin America and Asia would be reminder of destruction of places of religion of pagans. Colosseum in Rome would be celebration of violent Gladiators. Egyptian Pyramids will be reminder of slavery.  Most historical mosques would be reminder of  invasion and rule of so called foreigners. Even Taj Mahal would be shunned for the horrors it brought on the workers and the local economy. Forts in Rajashtan would be seen as celebrating Sati (many have hand impressions of 9-10 years old Sati’s)

To sum up, the NL team needs to overcome personal religious/social/North Indian biases to make for a much richer discussion.

regards

Himanshu

P.S. I am a subscriber.

————————————————————————————

Hi NL Team,

You guys are doing great and keeping the news free. I like the balance between the right you guys have in your Hafta.

I just was hearing the NLHAFTA 128 and heard this letter by a Karthik on Kannadiga and usage of Hindi in Bangalore. I agree with Karthik too an extent that North Indians are usually a little boorish when it comes to learn Kannada but it is not always them at fault. And this is coming from a bengali. I do believe that Kannanda needs to be the primary language just to preserve the language otherwise over years Hindi might actually kill the language. But opposing Hindi is also wrong. But one thing about learning Kannada I will tell you my story. My first time in Bangalore I am hunting for houses and the first incident which put me off from learning Kannada was the bus conductor in a Volvo. I was travelling to my office first week and saw a guy from North-east buy a ticket. He gave a 50rs note for a 15 rupee ticket. So the conductor just wrote the balance owed to him on the back of the ticket and asked him to collect before getting down. Fair enough because he didn’t have change at that time. So the guy was about to get down and he asked for the money. The conductor said he doesn’t have change. The guy said then he shouldn’t have taken the money in the first place and deboarded him. The guy started arguing and suddenly from broken Hindi/English he switched to kannada and started shouting. This is Karnataka talk in Kannada. Many of us tried interfering but most of us didn’t speak Kannada but I would assume that many people in the bus would be locals never interfered. I thought maybe this is a one-off incident but when talking to other people I realised that it wasn’t so uncomoon. At this point of time I fell in love with a Kannada girl and was pretty much interested in learning the language but I was put off the moment the same thing happened with me too. And things like this kept happening. I would go to a local vegetable wallah and he will charge me more than a native

I would go to a local vegetable wallah and he will charge me more than a native speaker.. This I realised when I went with my friend and he paid 10 rs for a kilo of onion and I was charged 15. Not a big amount but it was cheating. After that I never bought from a local seller preferring to go to the supermarkets atleast knowing they won’t have different prices.

When we went house hunting and if we bargained for rents or reducing the advance to be paid they would tell us “Oh you IT guys get paid a lot why do you care about a few thousand rupees?” and I wasn’t even working in them, they would treat us badly and try to fleece us most of the times despite written contracts. The Kannadigas always said we outsiders spoilt the city. Look at the traffic and all the pubs all caused due to you IT guys. So do you think when you hear all that stuff it is natural for a person to think ‘f**k their language, It is us ‘outsiders’ driving the local economy and I won’t put up with your nonsense.

I am not against the language in-principle and do oppose forcing Hindi on them but the government should take care to push a language in a manner which is not aggressive like the Modi Govt. is trying to do. Also I was watching the media rumble and the debate about Hindi journalism and the rajbhasha, I felt being a primarily north Indian crowd in Newslaundry you guys are a bit biased towards Hindi. I do agree Hindi is the most widely spoken language in India (Thanks UP and Bihar) but to push Hindi at the cost of local languages is bad. The fact is there is no clear solution to the issue but since English has already been used to connect all of India as it got accepted just because (a) it was a foreign language which hurt no regional sentiments and (b) Colonial hangover, there is no point in Hindi adoption throughout India. English and local language signages should be good enough and if a third language is used it should be left to the discretion of the local government.

Regards,

Arindam Halder

————————————————————————————

Hi NL team,

The google memo discussion in the last hafta seemed knee-jerk reaction. Can you guys confirm if all of you, who had commented on it in the podcast, had actually read the memo or only read responses to the memo, or were you simply winging it? Also, this ‘Code of conduct’ says so and hence its ok to fire is tricky criticism, by that logic rules created by govt (section 66a or 1st amendment for example) are there so whatever reaction by law enforcement to offensive speech would be justifiable. Or what if private organizations have racist/sexist/casteist rules in the code of conduct, would you defend it then? I am guessing not. So please avoid this throwing the rule book at the perceived offender. No matter what fine print says, actual action and reaction, by employee/employer, and context, matters, and that should be analyzed on a case by case basis. Rule book based witchhunt we see all the time by each party in government, and we are critical of it, so we should not be doing the same thing just because it suits our argument.

The science desk article from NL on the google memo subject is very good, but the hafta discussion was disappointing.

Prakash Iyer