Recently Republic TV and India Today hosted debates on “Brahmanical patriarchy”. In execution, however, both the leading English news channels failed to take into consideration a basic rule of a debate and, by extension, of journalism. Both Republic TV and India Today failed to get any representation from the opposing side, in this case, Dalit women.

About a week back, Twitter had organised an off-the-record meeting with a bunch of women. The objective of the meeting was for women to share their experiences of using the platform, their concerns about women’s safety, online harassment, among other things.

At the meeting, Sanghapali Aruna, a Dalit rights activist, handed Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey two posters. While one was an “End Caste Apartheid” poster, the other poster shows a woman holding a “Smash Brahminical Patriarchy” placard. It is the latter that has led to a huge row on the social networking site with a section of Twitter users outraging over how such a placard is advocating hate against a minority community, the Brahmins.

The Twitter row spilt into the physical space as news channels took it up for discussion—at least three prime-time debates have been held so far. Two debates were broadcast by Republic TV, while the third was on India Today. It seems a similar debate was hosted by NDTV too, though the video link isn’t available yet on their website or Youtube channel. This piece will be updated once it is.

On India Today, Rahul Kanwal was investigating if Twitter’s Jack Dorsey was really wrong in holding the “Smash Brahmanical Patriarchy” poster. To discuss patriarchy—more specifically, Brahmanical patriarchy—Kanwal had invited filmmaker Vivek Agnihotri, RSS ideologue Ratan Sharda, Dalit rights activist Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd, and journalist Anoo Bhuyan.

Basically, Kanwal had put together a panel of one woman and three men, to discuss patriarchy. (Seems like patriarchy at play?) But that wasn’t all. Kanwal, more importantly, seemed to forget to invite those who occupy the other side of the debate, Dalit women. Yes, India Today, hosted an entire debate about Brahmanical patriarchy with no representation from those actually affected by it. Interestingly, during the debate when one of the panellists accused the women who had met the Twitter CEO of not taking a stand, Kanwal said that those in question are not there to defend themselves. But this didn’t stop him from mentioning the “politically-loaded” poster given by Aruna to Dorsey, in her absence.  

Over at Republic TV, editor-in-chief Arnab Goswami on November 21 hosted a debate on Brahmanical patriarchy with seven men and zero women. When one of the panellists, Mohandas Pai, was talking about how the poster singles out and directs hate towards one community for patriarchy, there was no one to correct him.

The previous day, Goswami had also hosted a debate with a 10-member panel, of which four were women. Despite the number of panellists, Goswami did not deem it necessary to have a Dalit woman on the panel. Or perhaps he could not find one.

Interestingly, while Goswami was discussing patriarchy, a male panellist on the show, Savio Rodrigues, CEO, Kaydence & Kianna, took on Dorsey, saying, “Don’t tell us how to treat our women, we know how to treat our women.” In the very next minute, Rodrigues also told educator and activist Saira Shah Halim, the woman he was debating with, “Stop blabbering, you know nothing.” Unsurprisingly, this was ignored by the rest of the panel.

Speaking to Newslaundry about the entire issue, Christina Thomas Dhanaraj, co-founder of #DalitHistoryMonth says, “The level of debates and the discourse on Twitter is what it is because people fail to understand what Brahmanical patriarchy is. Because there so much confusion and ignorance around Brahmanical patriarchy, they think that it only concerns Brahmins; that this refers to patriarchy only in Brahmin households.”

She explains that Brahminical patriarchy is a phrase that’s used to express an intersectionality of caste and power. “Brahminical patriarchy doesn’t mean that patriarchy exists only within Brahmin households. It also exists in Dalit communities, in Muslim communities, within other communities and between communities.” But there is a need to understand that this conversation is not about Brahmin women, Dhanaraj says, adding, “The ultimate victims are Dalit women. This conversation belongs to Dalit women and it is important to keep the intersectionality in mind when discussing such issues.”

However, when people are not keyed in politically, this is how Brahminical patriarchy will be interpreted, Dhanaraj says. “For me as a Dalit, a woman, this is not a new term. I have to constantly read to understand the politics around caste. But upper-caste privilege allows leading life with ignorance. People have political opinions, but they are not keyed into politics or understanding. For us, who are marginalised, we are constantly trying to understand the politics around caste, class, communities and gender.”

Speaking about people’s reaction to Dorsey holding the placard, Dhanaraj says, “When sections of the upper-caste saw a white, powerful man holding such a poster, they thought it was something they need to be ashamed of. They feel threatened. This is how caste-blinds operate when an unacceptable reality is pointed out.” On the representation of Dalit women in news panels, Dhanaraj says, “Misconceptions about our ability to articulate our thoughts are the primary reason behind this. They don’t believe in our competencies, they think they can articulate our lived experiences better than us. This is how caste plays out.”

Dhanaraj adds, “But until this door is opened, until we are given more access, platforms to share our thoughts and views, our experiences and thoughts will remain confined.”