ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) (12/01/85)
This note would just address two points raised by Mr. Ajemi in his response to Velu's posting reg. relations between India and Israel. Mr. Ajemi states that traditional Indian culture is closer to apartheid ? I am just curious Mr. Ajamei knows what he is talking about ? Even though aspects such as the caste system and untouchability etc. are some of the undesirable vestiges of the Indian setup to compare it to apartheid is downright outrageous. The second point is Gandhi's acceptance of subjugation of the blacks in South Africa. I am sure Ajemi's view is grossly wrong. I think those who want to be informed about Gandhi's life in South Africa should his autobiography " MY experiments with truth ". Surprisingly some folks do not unwittingly fail to expose their bias, prejudice and ignorance. But I guess if we finally get informed then the end result is not all that bad.
raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) (12/02/85)
In article <2662@ut-ngp.UUCP> ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) writes: >about ? Even though aspects such as the caste system >and untouchability etc. are some of the undesirable >vestiges of the Indian setup to compare it to apartheid >is downright outrageous. Why? (PS: Please don't misinterpret this as an endorsement of Yakim Ajemi's views!)
dss00@amdahl.UUCP (dss00) (12/03/85)
> In article <2662@ut-ngp.UUCP> ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) writes: > > >about ? Even though aspects such as the caste system > >and untouchability etc. are some of the undesirable > >vestiges of the Indian setup to compare it to apartheid > >is downright outrageous. > In article <3688@ut-sally.UUCP> raghu@ut-sally.UUCP asks: > > Why? > Because the Indian caste system is a social evil and needs to be dealt with in a manner similar to the manner in which the race problems in the U.S. have and are still being dealt with. Apartheid, on the other hand, has legal sanctions and the support of a GOVERNMENT. Apartheid refuses even to acknowledge the equality before law. The victims of caste system in India have same legal rights and protections as any one else. In fact they have been given prefered treatment in matters such as education and government jobs. So the problem now is only one of a social nature and will hopefully get corrected completely with time and efforts of people concerned. In a nutshell, caste system does not have the might of a government behind it. -- Deepak S. Sabnis ...!{ihnp4,hplabs,amd,nsc}!amdahl!dss00 (408) 746-6058 (Usual Disclaimer Here)
gopal@cad.UUCP (Gopal Srinath) (12/03/85)
In article <3688@ut-sally.UUCP>, raghu@ut-sally.UUCP (Raghu Ramakrishnan) writes: > In article <2662@ut-ngp.UUCP> ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) writes: > > >about ? Even though aspects such as the caste system > >and untouchability etc. are some of the undesirable > >vestiges of the Indian setup to compare it to apartheid > >is downright outrageous. > > > Why? > > (PS: Please don't misinterpret this as an endorsement of Yakim Ajemi's views!) The govt is not suppressing the untouchables, unlike in S. Africa. Individuals may still discriminate. Everyone has the right to vote and preferential treatment is given to all oppressed classes by the govt thru reservations for jobs, education and legislative seats! People belonging to 'oppressor - social or economic' communities are forced to pay for the sins of their forefathers - seats/jobs are not available even if they have merit. Incentives are given for inter-caste marriages etc. This is a far cry from the situation in S. Africa. A parallel is the US - the govt is non-discriminatory tho some individuals do discriminate against blacks, women atc. One would not claim apartheid exists in US. That's why apartheid in S Africa cannot be equated with social discrimination by individuals in India.
sridhar@tekchips.UUCP (S Sridhar) (12/04/85)
> In article <2662@ut-ngp.UUCP> ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) writes: > > >about ? Even though aspects such as the caste system > >and untouchability etc. are some of the undesirable > >vestiges of the Indian setup to compare it to apartheid > >is downright outrageous. > > > Why? > > (PS: Please don't misinterpret this as an endorsement of Yakim Ajemi's views!) Yes Ganapathy, I too would like to know why? The comparision may not be entirely accurately but why is it downright outrageous ?
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (12/05/85)
I had the impression that caste was an intrinsic part of Indian religion and is described in documents as old as the Laws of Manu and that until quite recently the laws of caste were enforced by local Indian governments as part of Hindu religious law. In any case the effects of caste seems more deleterious than apartheid both actually and psychically. After all, I don't have the impression that Africaners go and perform ritual ablutions if the shadow of a black falls upon them. Further, I would think that practising caste because it is socially acceptable is less justifiable than practising apartheid because the government enforces the practise of apartheid. Essentially, the authors are saying de facto apartheid (caste) is less an evil than de jure apartheid. That argument did not wash for discrimination and segregation in the USA. By the way Ajami is my mother's name. Normally, I should be referenced as Mr. Martillo or Mr. Martillo Ajami. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
sk@duke.UUCP (Sanjaya Kumar) (12/06/85)
In article <182@hector.UUCP> martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > >After all, I don't have the impression that >Africaners go and perform ritual ablutions if the shadow of a black falls >upon them. > Dear Mr. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami After years of performing ritual ablutions whenever the shadow of a person of unknown caste fell upon me, I have invented and patented a rather ingenious device that saves me the trouble. It is now being test marketed in North America and the state of Madhya Pradesh as "Kumar's Halo (Save yourself a washup!)". In the unlikely event that you have missed the commercials plugging this device, (and at the risk of breaching net etiquette) here is a brief description: "Kumar's Halo" basically comprises a headband (worn, of course, around the head) with numerous (512 to be exact) tiny halogen bulbs powered by a lightweight backpack battery pack. When operated correctly, this device renders the wearer as a perpetual light SOURCE. And herein lies its beauty. Just as those poor blokes living on the Sun don't get to see any eclipses since no shadow can fall on them, the person wearing the Halo does not have to worry about any unwanted shadows defiling his/her person. Of course there may be problems in bright sunlight, but I am avidly following advances being made in laser technology (for application in the SDI effort) and hope to come up with a laser powered version of the Halo. I hope, Mr Martillo, that you will recommend this device to your upper caste Indian friends. Meanwhile, a market survey conducted among potential Afrikaaner buyers in downtown Johannesburg indicated that it would be well worth my effort to try and market this product there. I must thank you for that suggestion. Sanjaya Kumar Duke University
paturi@harvard.UUCP (Ramamohan Paturi) (12/06/85)
In article <182@hector.UUCP>, martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) writes: > > I had the impression that caste was an intrinsic part of Indian religion > and is described in documents as old as the Laws of Manu and that until > quite recently the laws of caste were enforced by local Indian governments > as part of Hindu religious law. > > In any case the effects of caste seems more deleterious than apartheid both > actually and psychically. After all, I don't have the impression that > Africaners go and perform ritual ablutions if the shadow of a black falls > upon them. > > Further, I would think that practising caste because it is socially acceptable > is less justifiable than practising apartheid because the government > enforces the practise of apartheid. What does the "practice" of caste mean in India? Some observations: 1. Each person should marry a person of his own caste. In this, all castes have the same outlook. For example, it is not OK for the parents of a "lower" caste if their son/ daughter marries a person belonging to a "higher" caste. Even though, the laws of Manu impose a hierarchy among the castes, most of the castes, over the time, have developed "self-respect" and regard themselves incomparable to others. This incomparability is especially true when it comes to marriage. Again, this incomparability attitude exists only in socially and economically developed castes. In others, it exists in a smaller way. Therefore, we now have a modified classification of Manu. Socially and economically developed or "forward" castes or groups versus socially and economically "backward" castes. 2. A forward caste person participating in a social function condcuted by a backward caste person at his home is rare. This is espcially true if the backward caste person belongs to the class of "untouchables". For example, in some villages, the practice of a separate water source for people belonging to the class of "untouchables" is observed. Local law can not enforce this custom. But, it goes unchallenged because of reasons like use of force and lack of education. In a sense, caste decides the social group with which you can be intimate socially. These barriers have come down in a rather significant way between any two forward castes. But, these barriers are still real. Shrinking of these barriers, to a larger extent, is a function of the social and economic status of the people involved. 3. People tend to promote people of their own caste. Again, this is true irrespective of the caste. 4. Also the practice of caste involves in resisting the change that is taking place. -0- The failure of the government lies in educating the people belonging to the class of "untouchables" and in providing sufficient physical or otherwise protection to the people who want to challenge or reform some of the local customs like separate sources of drinking water. I beleive that the government has enough incentives for people of backward classes to improve their lot. The above mentioned failures are partly responsible for the lack of effective utilization of these incentives. By any measure, progress is undeniable. Compare India of 1947 and of 1985. But, deeper problems exist. -0- -Ramamohan Paturi paturi@harvard
paturi@harvard.UUCP (Ramamohan Paturi) (12/06/85)
Who are in a worse situation, the blacks of South Africa or the "untouchables" of India? This makes a very good topic for net discussion. Especially, for those people who want to look at the ugly faces of others in stead of enjoying their beautiful faces in a mirror. Ramamohan Paturi paturi@harvard
ravi@crystal.UUCP (12/07/85)
> Martillo Ajami writes: > >I had the impression that caste was an intrinsic part of Indian religion >and is described in documents as old as the Laws of Manu and that until >quite recently the laws of caste were enforced by local Indian governments >as part of Hindu religious law. Your impression is quite mistaken: Caste is not a part of "Indian religion": Caste is part of the traditions practised by certain sections of society. Not only is it the case that the caste system does not have the sanction of the vast body of traditional religious and secular literature, it does not even find mention in the corpus of the Vedic and Vedantic literature -- the ultimate basis for Indian thought and tradition. Your expression "as old as the laws of Manu" suggests that these laws are among the most ancient of the works embodying Indian tradition/thought. They are in fact among the most recent. The laws of Manu are certainly post-Vedic and in many parts post-Vedantic. They are largely contemporaneous with the Brahmanas which are a good two-and-a-half millenia after the first of the Vedas. The Vedas have always been the traditional basis in India for learned religious/ philosophical argument. Indian tradition differs from the middle-eastern traditions (which includes christianity) in the absence of the notion of one or more books which are deemed to rigidly define the tenets and practices of the system. The view is strongly that values are NOT absolute. If your impression is that Indian tradition requires that Indians use books (least of all the laws of Manu!) to guide them in their day-to-day life, you are again profoundly mistaken. As for local governments enforcing the laws of Manu, India happens to be a secular country, and more than just in name. It is illegal and unconstitutional for a government to espouse the tenets of one religion or another. In the heterogeneous mix of religions and races that India is, it would also be quite suicidal for a government to take a non-secular stand. Experience has taught politicians in India that religion and politics form a highly explosive mixture. The recent problems in the Punjab are a good illustration. We even have a noun that is applied to describe the advocacy of one social or religious system over others: It is "communalism", and is a dirty word in India. >In any case the effects of caste seems more deleterious than apartheid both >actually and psychically. After all, I don't have the impression that >Africaners go and perform ritual ablutions if the shadow of a black falls >upon them. I am not sure what the point you are making here is. Any one who supports the caste system certainly has no right to object to apartheid. But if you are seriously suggesting that Indians today perform ritual ablutions when the shadow of an "untouchable" falls on them, you couldn't be more ignorant of contemporary India. There has been a recognition in India for a long time now that the caste system is an evil that is best put behind us as soon as possible. Both individuals and the government have worked hard to eliminate this evil. The Indian constitution makes the practice of untouchability a criminal offence. The constitution also GUARANTEES that a percentage of seats in universities and jobs in the government (India's largest employer) are reserved for the backward sections of Indian society. These quotas are quite high: Usually over 30% (although in some states this quota is as high as 67% when you include all the classes entitled to reservation under the constitution). Social change is always slow, but there is at least a concerted effort directed at bringing about change. On the other hand, you may be implying above that thinking individuals today have no right to object to apartheid because some distant ancestor of theirs may have been part of one social system or another. If so, I can only suggest you seriously reexamine the logic of your argument. >Essentially, the authors are saying de facto apartheid (caste) is less an >evil than de jure apartheid. That argument did not wash for discrimination >and segregation in the USA. That is not what the authors are saying. What they are saying is that it is time for the government of South Africa to put this evil behind them and adopt a more enlightened view. There are whites in South Africa who are against apartheid, but they are now in the minority. It is time for the rest to do a little soul-searching and re-examine the role of racism and bigotry in the context of today's world.
martillo@hector.UUCP (Yakim Martillo) (12/07/85)
In article <410@tekchips.UUCP> sridhar@tekchips.UUCP (S Sridhar) writes: >> In article <2662@ut-ngp.UUCP> ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) writes: >> >> >about ? Even though aspects such as the caste system >> >and untouchability etc. are some of the undesirable >> >vestiges of the Indian setup to compare it to apartheid >> >is downright outrageous. >> >> >> Why? >> >> (PS: Please don't misinterpret this as an endorsement of Yakim Ajemi's views!) > > >Yes Ganapathy, I too would like to know why? The comparision may not >be entirely accurately but why is it downright outrageous ? Personally, I would like to see Mr. Ganapathy's reply. It does not seem to have made it to MIT. Joachim Carlo Santos Martillo Ajami
ganpaty@ut-ngp.UUCP (S.Ganapathy) (12/07/85)
I think the Why has been answered by a few netters in my bouts of absence from the scene. I think everyone in India realises at the literate public realises the evil of Caste system. The govt. is trying to root it out. But ultimately it is the people themself who would decide the attitudes of society to such evil practices. This virus has been with us for the last severval hundred years and it is interesting to note that it originated out of the desire of Aryans who invaded and won to keep out the local folks from their midst. Such drastic changes cannot be expected to be in effect overnight. It might be a few genrations before the signs of the changes appear. It is being realised that education,incentives and the economic devolopment of socially backward classes is the only way to bring forth this change. It seems that even today such abhorent practices as not letting anyone draw water from any well of his choice, denying entry into places of worship or denying anyone the right to live anywhere he wants; is being practised as Mr. Martillo seems to have us beleive. I am just saying things would slowly change for the better. I hope no one forgets what happened to the black couple who moved into the white middle class neibhourhood in Philadelphia recently. Every one should realise that no society is perfect. Changes in attitudes and perceptions of society many a times take long to come into vouge.
narayana@psuvax1.UUCP (Kuram T. Narayana) (12/13/85)
> > Martillo Ajami writes: > > > >I had the impression that caste was an intrinsic part of Indian religion > >and is described in documents as old as the Laws of Manu and that until > >quite recently the laws of caste were enforced by local Indian governments > >as part of Hindu religious law. > > Your impression is quite mistaken: Caste is not a part of "Indian religion": > Caste is part of the traditions practised by certain sections of society. > Not only is it the case that the caste system does not have the sanction of the > vast body of traditional religious and secular literature, it does not even > find mention in the corpus of the Vedic and Vedantic literature -- the ultimate > basis for Indian thought and tradition. > > Your expression "as old as the laws of Manu" suggests that these laws are among > the most ancient of the works embodying Indian tradition/thought. They are in > fact among the most recent. The laws of Manu are certainly post-Vedic and in > many parts post-Vedantic. They are largely contemporaneous with the Brahmanas > which are a good two-and-a-half millenia after the first of the Vedas. The > Vedas have always been the traditional basis in India for learned religious/ > philosophical argument. > > Indian tradition differs from the middle-eastern traditions (which includes > christianity) in the absence of the notion of one or more books which are > deemed to rigidly define the tenets and practices of the system. The view is > strongly that values are NOT absolute. If your impression is that Indian > tradition requires that Indians use books (least of all the laws of Manu!) to > guide them in their day-to-day life, you are again profoundly mistaken. > > As for local governments enforcing the laws of Manu, India happens to be a > secular country, and more than just in name. It is illegal and unconstitutional > for a government to espouse the tenets of one religion or another. In the > heterogeneous mix of religions and races that India is, it would also be quite > suicidal for a government to take a non-secular stand. Experience has taught > politicians in India that religion and politics form a highly explosive > mixture. The recent problems in the Punjab are a good illustration. > We even have a noun that is applied to describe the advocacy of one social or > religious system over others: It is "communalism", and is a dirty word in > India. > > >In any case the effects of caste seems more deleterious than apartheid both > >actually and psychically. After all, I don't have the impression that > >Africaners go and perform ritual ablutions if the shadow of a black falls > >upon them. > > I am not sure what the point you are making here is. Any one who supports the > caste system certainly has no right to object to apartheid. But if you are > seriously suggesting that Indians today perform ritual ablutions when the > shadow of an "untouchable" falls on them, you couldn't be more ignorant of > contemporary India. There has been a recognition in India for a long time > now that the caste system is an evil that is best put behind us as soon as > possible. Both individuals and the government have worked hard to eliminate > this evil. > > The Indian constitution makes the practice of untouchability a criminal > offence. The constitution also GUARANTEES that a percentage of seats in > universities and jobs in the government (India's largest employer) are reserved > for the backward sections of Indian society. These quotas are quite high: > Usually over 30% (although in some states this quota is as high as 67% when > you include all the classes entitled to reservation under the constitution). > Social change is always slow, but there is at least a concerted effort directed > at bringing about change. > > On the other hand, you may be implying above that thinking individuals > today have no right to object to apartheid because some distant ancestor of > theirs may have been part of one social system or another. If so, I can only > suggest you seriously reexamine the logic of your argument. > > >Essentially, the authors are saying de facto apartheid (caste) is less an > >evil than de jure apartheid. That argument did not wash for discrimination > >and segregation in the USA. > > That is not what the authors are saying. What they are saying is that it is > time for the government of South Africa to put this evil behind them and adopt > a more enlightened view. There are whites in South Africa who are against > apartheid, but they are now in the minority. It is time for the rest to do a > little soul-searching and re-examine the role of racism and bigotry in the > context of today's world. Have you ever read marxism.. The caste system is a product of obtaining an efficient mode of production under a given socio-economic frame work. It became formented as a religious doctrine so as to sustain and expand the mode of production. Such formentation of an economic system is not unique to the indian society. In the precapitalist era, some of the englishmen used to call themselves brahmins reflecting their elitist existence in that society. Please read Oxford dictionary for a meaning of the word brahman. Now to treat the vestiges of a particular mode of production, using administrative, ideological and other means is within a capitalist system is justified on the ground that feaudalist psycology must be anhilated for any rapid establishment of the capitalist system. Equation of apartheid and caste system must be done only in the context of whether perpetuation of caste system strengthens the tenets of capitalism or perpetuation of aparthied stengthens capitalism. If it can be argued that both indeed perpetuate capitalism, both can be equated. Only after a careful analysis of the historical development of caste system and of apartheid, one can arrive at the conclusion that they are different. For those of us who live under a caste system, such analysis is irrelevent. For we can candidly see the articulation of caste and its purpose both by experience and by education. For those who are outside of that system, they must consider whether their system has an inherent caste formation and then try to analyze the systems. thanks..kt . *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***