Feminism — importance of addressing patriarchal power structures
To me, like many true feminists, feminism is about identifying and challenging power structures that oppress women and other oppressed. Personal narratives have their place in feminism but without challenging power structures, they are nothing. Individualistic narratives, even if it manages to build some movement, will always fail to make the necessary change. The whole history, if seen from a feminist perspective, would offer deep insights. The occasional presence of so-called ‘exceptional’ women who managed to make their presence felt doesn’t negate the systemic patriarchy that has been in existence since time immemorial. The politics of celebrating occasional individual successes deliberately muddles the influence of power structure which is holding back the same possibilities for many other women. Instead, every achievement/achiever should always be examined in this light, taking into account as many oppressive histories as possible. The striking absence of women historically in many spheres is for me reason enough not to idolize any achiever/achievement, for example. From the ‘feminist’ POV, it is patriarchy which is the root of all evils, patriarchy that is omnipresent from our domestic spaces to workplaces, from one’s birth till death governing one’s whole life. Patriarchy is completely intertwined and often expressed violently through the capitalist machinery. Patriarchy takes many shapes and it prevails even among the oppressed identities. Though most of the fights are common for all oppressed people, some fights are very specific to women and other ‘non-dominant’ genders. While basic human rights like freedom of expression, right to basic amenities/education/health/work etc., are common fights, the specifics when it comes to women involve socially and legally making it impossible to discriminate women or to prevent them from leading their lives as they want. If ‘activists’ talk feminism without talking about strong labour unions, right to free education/health/land, employment, minimum wage, etc. one wonders what they are blathering on about. The specifics here being ensuring due representation of women in for example in unions, maternity and paternity leave, workplace childcare, representation in leadership positions, revisiting gender based occupational segregation, etc.
The domestic and public spaces are much more difficult areas to change especially in a country like India where iron control is exerted over women. Laws to ensure safe and free domestic/public spaces for women haven’t been implemented in the truest sense. Taking marriage, while there is an argument that marriage is evolved as an institution to prevent exploitation of women which IMO has credence, marriage in India is essentially legalized women trade and a system to preserve the caste system. All the rituals centred around the gender, untold rules for a girl/woman, etc. need to be fought against.
Coming to the superficial elite feminism, its problems are obvious but it does have its place. The politics and violence unleashed on the body of a girl/woman is untold. And most of the elite feminists never question the capitalist machinery which has capitalized on and perpetuated patriarchy for they are part of it. It has been sold to them as ‘freedom of choice/whatever’. Irrespective of where a women lives, unless she faces too many oppressions, not a day passes by without her experiencing the brutality of patriarchal expectations and the notion of ‘beauty’. That is reflected in the tacit acceptance of whatever the patriarchal capitalist machinery sells and in the self-objectivation of women. For all the freedom that they talk about, I am yet to see women coming out in their ‘freedom’ clothes ‘sporting’ their bodies as they are. End!
On categorization of castes
I came across an opinion that made a point against strict categorization of castes as OBCs, SCs, etc. because this approach doesn’t take the specifics like regional caste dynamics, etc. into account. X used to make this point (in a subtler way) in Tamil context citing for example Panaiyeri nadars who are as socially and economically backward as dalits if not more. To me, it always seemed a good solution to include whatever socially backward community (meaning communities which carry the caste stigma like SCs) into SC category if it fulfils the criteria (regardless of the possibility of doing so). I entered into an introspection mode as I generally address caste problem in broader terms, but still unable to come to terms with the argument against categorization and for specifics. What X then formulated (what follows below) seemed a good argument to me, hence the post. It is true that certain OBC castes are socially and economically backward as the SCs/STs. It might also be true that some SCs wield power in some regions over OBCs, etc. These issues should be taken into account and addressed. Specifics are talked about when and where it is needed. But here is the problem with preferring and constructing a narrative around specifics and promoting it, what it does is it takes the essence of casteism away i.e. hierarchy. Caste system is based on hierarchy and that some castes have been able to move upwards and wield power is no reason to say that hierarchy is basically non-existent which is untrue. Given moving towards a casteless society is basically working against this hierarchy, talking about caste in broader terms is very important.
யார் தமிழர்கள்?
(In reply to a discussion on tamil identity)
என்னை பொறுத்தவரை இந்த கேள்விக்கு பதிலை அடைய இந்த கேள்வியை பல கேள்விகளாய் பிரிக்கவேண்டும்.
சமூக தளத்தில் யார் தமிழர் என்பது முதல் கேள்வி. யாரெல்லாம் தன்னை தமிழரென உணர்கிறார்களோ அவர்கள் எல்லோருமே தமிழர்கள்தான். தமிழ் தெரியாதவரும் தன்னை தமிழரென உணரலாம். அதற்கு ஒருவர் தமிழ்நாட்டில் பிறந்திருக்க வேண்டிய அல்லது வாழ வேண்டிய அவசியமோ கூட என்னை பொறுத்தவரை இல்லை.
மொழி அடிப்படையில் தமிழ் தெரிந்தவர்கள் தமிழரென சிலர் கருதலாம், அது லாஜிக்கலும் கூட. ஆனால் எனக்கு அதில் உடன்பாடு இல்லை. மொழி அரசியல் பெரும் அரசியல். எழுத படிக்க தெரிய வேண்டுமா, இலக்கியம் தெரிய வேண்டுமா, தமிழ் பேசினால் போதுமா, கொச்சைத்தமிழ் என சிலர் பேசும் தமிழ் கருதப்படுமா, இப்படி மொழி அடையாளத்துக்குள் கேள்விகள் எழுப்பிக்கொண்டே போகலாம். மற்ற ‘தமிழ்’ அடையாளத்தில் இது குறுக்கிடாத வரை இதுவும் இருந்துவிட்டு போகலாம்.
மிக முக்கியமானது ‘அரசியல்’ தளம். இங்கு தமிழ்நாட்டில் மற்ற மக்கள் போல் ‘வாழும்’ அனைவருமே தமிழரென தான் கருதப்படவேண்டும். தற்காலிக தொழிலா, இல்லை நிரந்தரமாக இருக்கப்போகிறார்களா, என்ன தொழில், இப்படி எல்லாம் கேள்வி கேட்க அவசியம் இல்லை. தமிழ்நாட்டில் வாழும் அனைவரும் (தமிழ் பேசாத, தன்னை தமிழரென உணராத) அனைவருமே தமிழர் தான். இது மிக கடினமான நிலைப்பாடு, ஆனால் எவருக்கும் எடுத்துக்காட்டாய் இருக்கும். இதற்கான வரையறைகளை வேண்டுமானால் விவாதிக்கலாம்.
A crying need for at least a dent in the TN casteist cocoon
No doubt the sacred texts which give legitimacy to casteism have to be criticized and done away with. Enough reason to attack the sacred-text Hinduism. But I wonder how many in TN have actually read the texts. My point being the casteism among followers of whatever religion(s) mentioned here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWSryRtKbLE has to be questioned and addressed at least once in a while (because he claims not to be Hindus, which I find true/honest given Hindus mean those who follow/believe in sacred-text Hinduism).
1. Hinduism preaches and legitimizes caste
2. Caste system/atrocities are still widely prevalent in TN (dravidian land)
3. Religion(s) practised by people in TN have nothing to do with sacred-text Hinduism as Pala. Karuppiah (rightly) says
4. MIRACULOUSLY, CASTEISM IN TN HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH SACRED-TEXT HINDUISM.
How one accepts 1–3 as true and comes to the conclusion 4 is beyond me.
5. One can state fact 1 24*7, choose to attack that Hinduism for the right reasons and also, very deliberately and particularly whenever the caste question comes up, knowingly or unknowingly shifting the blame from casteists.
How one does 5 and still claim to be anti-caste, I don’t know. There is a need to attack the vile casteism for what it is. Keep attacking the original perpetrators and some book read not even by fringe elements, and the imitated casteism, which has grown to be so ugly and big, will disappear is fantasy (I am being very polite/trusting here). It is high time to have an honest and very uncomfortable caste discourse.
Neoliberal caste
(Rants after reading this *beautiful* article https://scroll.in/magazine/867130/indo-anglians-the-newest-and-fastest-growing-caste-in-india)
Don’t know if it is wise to react to every stupid article that comes in my timeline. But still…
The stupidity shows up straight from the first line with the author hailing the ‘transformation’ of his household to an English-speaking one. Has he any idea about (neo)colonialism? To emphasize the importance of learning English given the history and the present state of the world where there is a need to communicate in a common language in various spheres, with preservation of one’s roots (let us talk about the roots later), is one thing. But what the author here praises is just ‘sophisticated English’ and he makes ‘becoming rootless including forgetting one’s mother tongue’ as some kind of emancipation, that too in a country like India where languages/cultures have been erased and are in constant threat. Gone are the days when ‘unity in diversity’ is hailed.
If one looks at the characteristics of this community, ‘affluent’, ‘urban’ and ‘highly educated’, it becomes clear how exclusive this community is. The author himself later acknowledges that this community is mostly comprised of privileged upper caste people, he goes on to say ‘it helps that most members are from privileged (or savarna backgrounds) which lends that confidence’; if you are wondering what that confidence is about, it is the confidence to ‘navigate Indo-Anglian circles’ and to speak impeccable English. The claim that the criteria for inclusion into this special community is advanced English speaking skills, which is already atrocious, is not entirely true if you examine closely. So, let us name the characteristics of this community that are too obvious, capitalist/class-conscious, elitist and conscious or ignorant slaves of neocolonialism and neoliberalism, not to mention casteist in its own right.
Extrapolating from this article, one can understand one has to have decent amounts of money, speak impeccable English, be highly educated and have supreme confidence to join this community which till now is predominantly upper caste (thanks to their privilege) but claims to be ‘open’ to inter-caste and inter-religious marriages provided they fulfil the explicitly and ‘subtly’ mentioned criteria. The shrewdness lies in promoting the illusion that this community is ‘casteless’. Brilliant example of how the disgusting nexus between capitalism and caste can work. To put it more clearly, this community is nothing but a community formed by privileged, upper caste people who are reluctant to read and question their historical privilege and to try and reverse the historical blunder, but who are shameless to find a nexus between capitalism and casteism and cunningly frame a set of rules/criteria without explicit mention of caste in it, the criteria being nothing but that are historically denied to people from oppressed castes. So if some from the oppressed caste manage to get education, become wealthy and enter these affluent circles speaking impeccable English, these privileged ‘casteless’ people would flaunt it as an example of the community being inclusive.
Not to mention this community is, in author’s own words predominantly ‘Hindu’ albeit without traditional religious views but neoliberal views of religion. Let us just hope that his prophecy that ‘we are likely to see more new-age gurus’ doesn’t come true. Same neoliberal views, seemingly progressive, on education, but again if one looks closely the advancement he hails is ‘new wave of corporate backed’ education. There are articles on how caste functions in elite circles. But even if the claims in this article are considered true, i.e. even if a dalit managed to become ‘people like them’ it doesn’t mean that this community is in anyway progressive or helps in annihilation of caste but just what is said about Condoleezza Rice here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQtiKaoNUrc
