10.28.2006

The Oppression of Shudras/Dalits in India, Part V: A Hindu Liberationist Perspective


It’s all one skin and bone,
one piss and shit,
one blood, one meat.
From one drop, a universe.
Who’s Brahmin? Who’s Shudra?
-Kabir (15th century Bhakti saint)

Today there are around 200-250 million Dalits in India with 75-80% of them below the poverty line(1) and backward castes as a whole (Dalits, tribes, etc.) forming close to 52% of the population of India.(2) Needless to say caste oppression in India is probably the greatest injustice still existing in, and haunting, that society today. I come to this subject as an outsider (in every sense of the word, I’m a white Christian American male!) looking in not knowing the full intricacies that effect lower caste and non-caste Indians, nor do I pretend to know or try and talk about subjects that are outside of my realm of knowledge. I’m writing this essay because of a Reuters article that came out in August and that appeared in Al Jazeera which perked my interest in the subject of caste. Although I may be critiquing caste in Indian society I do not mean to degrade the great and ancient religious tradition that is Hinduism nor do I mean to impose my religious beliefs (I follow the school of thought of Liberation Theology in the Christian tradition) onto those who follow the Hindu tradition because I recognize that many Christians have done this in the name of liberating people from the horrors of caste oppression. I’m not so narrow minded and simple to think that Christianity is the answer to caste oppression in India, in fact, I recognize that even in Christian communities and churches priests and worshipers still follow the caste system and still oppress people on the basis of caste, even though they claim to have liberated people from the rigid structures of caste.(3) In order to overcome the evils of caste all Indians have to do is to just look at their own traditions (not to Christianity) in order to see that there are liberating schools of thought within those traditions, and this is indeed what many have done over the centuries, whether it was Swaminarayan (1781-1830) who got rid of caste in his community of followers, Vivekananda (1863-1902) who preached that the downtrodden needed to be uplifted and that the caste distinction needed to be rid of, or the great B. R. Ambedkar (1891-1956), the militant Dalit who ferociously fought against all forms of caste discrimination and latter converted to Buddhism (with 200,000 of his followers) claiming that Hinduism was so corrupt and oppressive that he could no longer consider himself Hindu. All three Indians, and many many more, fought against the caste system and/or caste distinction (all though Swaminarayan and Vivekananda were from the Brahmin caste with only Ambedkar being outside of the caste system, a Dalit), while I won’t take up the line that Ambedkar did (that Hinduism was hopelessly corrupt and evil) I will be critiquing that aspect of Hinduism. Again, as I’ve said above, I am an outsider looking in, a non-Hindu, so because of this my criticisms will not be as harsh as are my criticisms of Christianity because I don’t want to be mistaken as criticizing the Hindu religion as a whole, which is not at all my intention.

The caste system is as old as the Hindu religion itself, in fact, it even predates Hinduism by some centuries. One important thing to know about the caste system is that it was brought into the Indus Valley from the outside by a tribe of semi-nomadic people called the Aryans (the “Noble Ones”), who originally inhabited the steppe country of southern Russia and Central Asia and entered India, through the Indus Valley, around the year 1500 BCE.(4) The Aryans had a linear sense of time and had a structured caste system with three sets of castes (warrior caste on top, followed by a priestly caste, and then everyone else) and a plethora of mostly male gods, the language that the Aryans spoke was Sanskrit which latter became the basis for Hindi. When the Aryans invaded the Indus Valley the people of the Indus Valley had a religion with no caste system, a circular sense of time (hence the Hindu concept of reincarnation, etc.), and a pantheon of female goddesses.(5) The fact that the outsider Aryans introduced India to the caste system and was a warrior-centered culture that had a reverence for male gods is one of the reasons why scholars, such as Kalpana Kannabiran argue that “patriarchy is in fact the basis of the caste system and that the patterns of hierarchy, power and authority which characterise the caste system are derived from earlier forms of gender-based oppression.”(6) When the Aryans first invaded the Indus Valley they called the Indus Valley people (Indians) Dasa (Sanskrit for dark-skinned) and the three-tier caste system was morphed into a four-tier caste system called the Four Varnas (which means color); Brahmins, the priestly class were now on the top, Ksatriyas, the warrior class were now below the priests, then their was the Vaishyas, skilled labor, and the Sudras, unskilled labor. Outside of the caste system were the non-Vedic peoples and the Dalits (the untouchables). Originally the lighter one’s skin color was the higher up in the caste system one was (with the Aryans obviously being at the top of the system) and the higher up in the caste system one was the more “pure” that person was (purity was of a huge concern of the Indus Valley people with many ritual and private baths having been excavated).(7) The majority of the people in the Indus Valley fell within the lower castes which can be seen today since 77% of Indians comprise these lower castes (as well as Dalits, scheduled castes/scheduled tribes [SC/ST], etc.).(8) What this mini-history lesson shows us was that the concept of caste is a concept that was brought into India by outside forces (the patriarchical and warrior culture of the Aryans) which then incorporated itself into the civilization of the Indus Valley people through the Vedas (specifically the Rg Veda). The Aryans and Brahmins needed a system to keep themselves on top and the majority of the dark-skinned Indus Valley people at the bottom, the caste system was the perfect way to do this, and in fact this had been the case until around 500 BCE when the traditions of the Vedas and the Brahmins began to be attacked by Hindu ascetics.(9)

From around 600 BCE to 200 BCE there was an incredible Vedic development in the Hindu tradition (a philosophic development) which can be described as the “democratization of Hinduism.” Out of this philosophic development came the Upanisads (upanisad implies “sitting at the feet of the teacher,” Upa=down, Ni=near, and Sad=sit).(10) The Upanisads were focused on attaining the mystical knowledge that would free a person from “re-death” or punarmrtyu. The Brhadāranyaka Upanisad placed emphasis on the knowledge of the cosmic connection underlying ritual. “When the doctrine of the identity of atman (the Self) and brahman was established in the Upanishads, the true knowledge of the Self and the realization of this identity...substituted the ritual method.”(11) Asceticism started becoming more widespread (which was one the factors leading to the creation of the latter Upanisads) in reaction to the rigid doctrines of the Brahmin and of the Vedas. What’s important to note as that even though these ascetics were critical of the Vedas and scathing in their critiques of the Brahmins they were still very much Hindu in nature (in fact, they probably didn’t consider themselves anything else, all though the term Hindu wasn’t around then) and their philosophical teachings and thought derived from the Vedas. These ascetics denied that only Brahmins could receive bliss and escape reincarnation and stated that through giving up the world and all desires anyone, whether Dalit or Vaishya, could attain psychic security, or rather, liberation through the attainment of unification with Brahman. Out of reaction to this the Brhamins devised a doctrine called the four asramas (abodes) which dived the life of the “twice born” into four stages” which would keep asceticism in check by confining it to middle-aged males.(12)

On top of these ascetics came leaders who led offshoots of Hinduism and breakaway sects such as Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) and Vardhamana (Mahavira, the great teacher of Jainism). These two leaders rejected not only the pleasures of the world, but more importantly, they rejected the claims of the Brahmins and the ritualistic Brahminic schools who claimed authority and superiority over other Hindus and Indians by claiming to be pure and to have the right to perform traditional rituals and sacrifices, as well as having the rights to interpret their meanings. While the Buddha rejected Hinduism (as well as religion) all together, Mahavira kept to the central aspects of Hinduism while abandoning the rituals that allowed the Brahmins to dominate all aspects of life. Mahavira stated that through one’s own efforts one could attain liberation and freedom from rebirth,(13) short of the Buddha, this was one of the most complete rejections of the Brahmins (and in turn their belief in ritual purity and caste) that anyone could have ever articulated.

All of this now brings us to today and to the subject of the liberation of Dalits and to the subject of my final blog in this series, a Hindu Liberationist perspective on the plight of Dalits and of their liberation from caste oppression. What disturbed me about the student protests against the further admission of lower caste and SC/ST students was that these high caste students had the wrong premise that the oppression of lower caste and SC/ST peoples was the “correct” form of Hinduism and the only form that should be practiced (all though I do recognize that some of these students could have been playing the “caste card,” claiming caste privilege in order to protect their privilege in society). Yet we have seen in the ancient history of Hinduism that caste was an outside concept placed upon the Indus Valley people by an outside tribe of semi-nomadic pastoralists, this shows us that the concept of caste didn’t grow “organically” from Indian soil but was imposed from the outside, and hence, the shedding of caste ideology and caste oppression would in a sense mean the shedding of outside Aryan domination against the Indian peoples, of course many high caste Indians still adhere to their Aryan roots and view their Brahmin status as a source of pride, not something to overcome in order to help out their lower caste and Dalit sisters and brothers. Despite the seemingly set in stone concepts of caste in the Rg Veda many Hindus over the preceding centuries fought back against the Brahminic elite and questioned the writings of the Vedas, especially the writings on ritualistic purity (a major concept in caste ideology) and on the “privileges” of the Brahmin caste. Whether it was the radical Siddhartha Gautama, who renounced Hinduism, or Vardhamana, who used acetic concepts of Hindu thought to criticize the present day establishment, thoughtful Hindus and the ever evolving Hindu religion never laid down and accepted the perverse policies of the Brahmin and their constant quest for power. Because of this we can see that Hinduism was never a monolithic religion that accepted the Vedas sayings on caste and ritual as blindly as present day Hindu nationalist BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) and RSS (Rashtriya Svayamsevak Sangh) supporters would like us to think. History has shown us that a thoughtful and pious Hindu can be one who rejects certain ideas of Vedic thought that are oppressive and evil and history has also shown us within the Hindu tradition there has always been an ever evolving struggle for freedom against the Brahminic caste in the realm of the physical and the realm of the spiritual, such as reclaiming concepts of freedom from rebirth and attaining liberation by being joined with Brahmin. With this in mind I will now actually tackle (in part VI, the final part, of this series) the problems of the caste system and the oppressions Dalits have faced over the centuries (especially the 20th century and now) and how Dalits will be the ones to actually bring about change in this present day situation and how Dalits are the only ones to bring about their own salvation (not from outside help from people such as Gandhi or someone like myself) and how the Hindu religion plays a role in this, and how it can play a liberating role instead of the role of oppressor.


Endnotes

1. Grey, Mary, “Dalit Women and the Struggle for Justice in a World of Global Capitalism,” The
Journal of Britain & Ireland School of Feminist Theology 14, no. 1 (Sept. 2005): 129.
2. Ghose, Sagarika, “The Dalit in India,” Social Research 70, no. 1 (Spring 2003): 84.
3. Mary, “Dalit Women,” 144.
4. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006, “Hinduism,” available at Encyclopedia Britannica Online
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-8972 (accessed Oct. 28, 2006).
5. Kyle Dupen, Philosophy 502 World Religions Lecture (San Francisco State University: San
Francisco, CA) 26 Aug. 2005; Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006, “Hinduism,” available at
Encyclopedia Britannica Online http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-8981 (accessed Oct. 28,
2006).
6. Cited by Gabriele Dietrich, “The Relationship between Women’s Movement and Dalit
Movements: Case Study and Conceptual Analysis,” in A New Thing on Earth: Hopes and Fears
Facing Feminist Theology (Delhi: Indian Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge for
Tamil Nadu Theological Seminary, Madurai, 2001): 217.
7. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006, “Hinduism,” available at Encyclopedia Britannica Online
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-8972 (accessed Oct. 28, 2006).
8. The Mustard Seed, “The Oppression of Shudras in India: A Marxist and Hindu Perspective, Part I,” http://www.mustardkernal.blogspot.com (accessed Oct. 28, 2006).
9. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006, “Hinduism,” available at Encyclopedia Britannica Online
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-8984 (accessed Oct. 28, 2006).
10. Dupen, Lecture, 2 Sept. 2005.
11. Encyclopedia Britannica, 2006, “Hinduism,” available at Encyclopedia Britannica Online
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-59824 (accessed Oct. 28, 2006).
12. Ibid., http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-8984 (accessed Oct. 28, 2006).
13. Ibid., http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-59009 (accessed Oct. 28, 2006).

18 comments:

mynameisnobody said...

One has to be born as an upper caste Hindu to sense its timeless values. All other people seee only darkness.

Jack Stephens said...

Wow, I have to say I'm quite taken aback, but then again, not really. It is this uncritical and oppressive thinking that I was writing about. Mynameisnobody did not address the situation at hand, all she/he said was "All other people seee (sic) only darkness." This type of thinking makes it hard to debate with someone since they refuse to look at the reality of the situation. This person did not refute any of my points made in the above blog nor did this person try to make a defense of his/her position. I'll pretty much leave my comment at that, how does one argue with someone who holds such a small minded view of the world (and of their own religion!)? My answer is, one can't. The only way one could argue with someone like Mynameisnobody is if she/he actually was able to think critically and open up his/her eyes, or at least listen to a counter argument. But alas, there is nothing I can say further. My final blog in this series should appear sometime within the next week or so. But I am glad I got a comment.

Anonymous said...

you totally pwn3d that guy. w00t w00t

Polite Indian said...

Again a nice article but there are few things that are still debated by the historians.
1. The Aryan Invasion Theory. It is still not proven or accepted that Aryans were outsiders.

2. Varna meaning color. Not many historians (especially Indians) accept Varna system as division based on color but it is accepted as division based on labor. Even though the word varna can mean color as well.

Overall a very nice series you have here. I can see you have done quite a bit of research. Maybe you have already read it but regarding the Shudras there is nice article(I don't know if it is a book) by Ambedkar called who were the shudras.

Human Rights Blogger said...

Hello Mr.Savior of Dalits,
I must say that your writing abilities and style is interesting at the least. Though your english and contents of the articles can be enjoyed for its academic manners, I am shocked, terrified and deeply hurt when you reffered "The Father of Modern India Dr.Ambedkar" as a "militant". This is not only a reflection of your shallowness on this great Human. Dr.Ambedkar was a great humanist. Do not you feel and sense such a great human's touch in India and abroad today, evern after 50 years his death, his work reverberates & omnipresent. Whether it is today or in the days of Dr.Ambedkar, none could match his greatness. Dr.Ambedkar preached and practiced intellectualism and humanity, in places where there is no humanity, he educated the people and asked them to fight for basic human rights and human dignity, how dare you use the term "militant" for such a great scholar. His intellectual approach on the filthy caste system of India and Varna contaminated hindu society can be challenged even by Gandhi? None of those so called big names you used in your articles on and on..did not make honest and genuine effort to remove or eradicate filth in the society, but Dr.Ambedkar fought for it until his death and made enormous progress that his wisdom opened up a huge gate of intellectualism to the downtrodden and oppressed humans. Gandhi though initiated a consiousness on non-voilence, he advocated a caste based society, he was one of the capable leaders made every effort to keep the caste system alive, why did not he fought to remove the caste system. Because this very same man said that caste system has scientific basis, such a intellectually rotten and callous minded person was promoted as Mahatma, and all you ill informed writers trumphet about Gandhi's name, how sad!?.

Tell me what do you know about Bhimrao Ambedkar, tell me what do you!, it looks like you have done some reading which is not any good to even touch the life and nobel contributions of Dr.Ambedkar. While I appreciate your broadminded approach to bring a story about dalits, you have made yourself a careless writer by referring Dr.Ambedkar as a militant, my advice to you is to go read some scholarly literatures on Dr.Ambedkar,the following writings may help you to some degree of understandings:
http://greatscholar.blogspot.com
http://upliftthem.blogspot.com

If you have done a scruplous and well thought article, you would not have used such terms. Hope you will be deligent in your future articles on dalits, apart from these blunders, it is a good writing, keep it up. It is important to fight for justice wherever humans are suppressed or oppressed in the name of ridiculous religious doctrins, which is not only filthy but inhumane. What is religion is meant to be, not to spread human atrocity in the name of caste. What sort of religion is hinduism that you procrastinate to, Dalits are not Hindu's and nor they are interested in subjugated to a IGNORANT religion, a day will come soon that all the dalits will be liberated from this Varna filth for which Dr.Ambedkar stuggled his entire life. Please do not make a mockery of a finest scholar, remove the word. thanks, Dr.Muni, CT

readerswords said...

Saint: Your point is well taken, Dr Ambedkar advocated the middle path, that is also the path indicated by the Buddha.

However, I believe that Jack has used the term "militant" in contrast to Mahatma Gandhi's paternalistic attitude on the caste question and not in the sense of a 'terrorist' or in a derogatory sense.

I think that as a young student Jack has been doing a tremendous job with a sincerity and rigour that should be a lesson to many in India (and in other third world countries) who live in this reality but refuse to be sensitive to it.

Human Rights Blogger said...

Bhupinder,
Thanks for your comments, Jack's work on dalit issue is good. Though I understood Jack's intention, it is not appropriate to use such term even while describing it in reference to Gandhi or whoever.
As I said, Dr.Ambedkar's work and service to humanity is supremely live even 50 years after his death, to which no leaders dead or live can match, a person who fought for the very humany and human dignity does not deserved to be referred as a militant. Simple.

readerswords said...

Saint,
I still do not understand why the antipathy to the word 'militant'. It may be good if you can explain that since your entire comment does not state why you dislike that word.

I am sure you have reasons that bring about such an intense reaction, I am still trying to understand what those are.

Jack Stephens said...

Saint: I appreciate your comments very much. But, like Bhupinder, I'm a little confused on your complete adverse reaction to the term "militant." Bhupinder pretty much nailed it on the head when he said, "I believe that Jack has used the term 'militant' in contrast to Mahatma Gandhi's paternalistic attitude on the caste question and not in the sense of a 'terrorist' or in a derogatory sense." When I said "militant" I meant it in a completely positive sense, unlike the mainstream of society who view it as a negative and those who attack people such as Ambedkar tyring to paint that term as a negative. When I said militant I meant it a wholly positive way. To me, being militant means not compromising on issues of truth and justice and taking on those issues with full force, whether that force be of the gun, the pen, or non-violent mass action (or all three at once). Being a militant and a radical means one puts one's feelings of one's self on the back burner and puts the feelings of others in the front. When one is militant one fights against all odds to improve the lives of others who are oppressed and to educate and make aware to mainstream society the plight of others around them and of their oppression. And to be militant means to tell it like it is in uncompromising fashion against those who exploit others and even against those who don't actively oppress but still benefit from the oppression. When I said militant I meant all what I said above to apply to Ambedkar, I too hold all of the same respect and admiration towards Ambedkar that you hold and I do indeed know much about him but I'm positive not as much as you know.

Also, I take offense to the term you sarcastically (I'm assuming) call me, "Mr. Savior of Dalits." I find that completely offensive because never once did I ever think that of myself as that. That would be totally delusional and, indeed, oppressive, to think of myself as that. I'm only merely trying to write a blog that other people can read and to illuminate the issue of caste to others who don't know about it. No one can be a savior of Dalits except for a Dalit, and anyone who thinks that and is not a Dalit is not only is delusional but also spitting on the dignity that Dalits have (not the romanticized dignity that Gandhi tried to assert within the caste system but the dignity, the human dignity, that Ambedkar asserted, I talk about this near the end in part VI). But regardless, thanks for the comment.

Polite Indian: Thanks for the clarifications and yes I have read parts of that but not all of it, which I will do. As for varna meaning color I wholly agree with you and I also agree with the division of labor concept as well.

Bhupinder: Thanks for your helpful and claritive comments. I also agree with you in wanting to know what Saint means by "militant" and why he has such an averse reaction to it.

Human Rights Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Human Rights Blogger said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Human Rights Blogger said...

PREVIOUS POSTS WERE REMOVED DUE TO SOME TYPOS..

This is my Explanation & Reasons:

Hello Jack & Bhupinder,
I wish you had an opportunity to read my comments carefully, because the answer for your question is already embedded in it. Neverthless, I am glad to clarify it for you here, so that it might be of some help for all concerned to draw a fruitful interpretation of Dr.Ambedkar's contributions to this world. Dr.Ambedkar was one of the finest Humanitarian and intellect. I realy cannot think of an alternative or an equivalent person like Dr.Ambedkar in the last 100 hundred years or so?. His humanitarian way of dealing with this world predominates even today than his myraid of other superlatives he acquired or possessed or encapsulated in him.

It is very important for us to look at his early years to see why militancy was not part of his life but the humanitrain and scholarly approach was!!.

Let us look at the early years of Dr.Ambedkar:

a].In the school days, he was humiliated and tortured by isolation and he was made to sit in a corner like some street dogs?.
b].His classmates used to keep their lunch boxes behind the black board or somewhere in that vicinity. The class teacher asked the students in the class to go to the board to write or explain subjects, one day when the teacher had asked Ambedkar to come forward to the black board. There was an immediate chaos among boys in the classroom, the whole class was opposed Ambedkar reaching to the board, infact they all rushed to move their lunch boxes far away from Ambedkar. These are young boys, these are kids we are talking about. Even the kids those era had the most maligned heads and thoughts about another human, they called the poor section of the society as impure, these day to day class activity is worst than slaughtering of a person. Because they were actually slaughtering the thoughts of Ambedkar and other untouchable boys, such a very young and tender brains cannot withstand tormenting environments as was imposed upon the dalits those days by lunatic caste people. But Ambedkar made it through, there was not a single incident of he beeing a militant or attacking the other boys in the class...?.
c]. When, Bhimrao was thursty and tried to drink water in a public tap, he was physically kicked out of water tap, and abused for touching the water tap, the hearts should bleed in any human to watch or to undergo such social crimes. But such barbarism continued......the remains of barbaric hindu culture is killing dalits even today.
d] Elsewhere, water was poured on his hands for him to drink, from several feet above his hand, he has to hold both the hands like a begging posture to fetch some stray water from some upper castes persons pot and he was made to drink like this?.
e].When Bhimarao and his brother or cousin brother were travelling in a man pulled cart, somewhere halfway the cartman was told about the boys that they were untouchables, immmediately the cartman twisted the cart and these kids were thrown out of the cart savagely by the bloody cartman.
f] so many events like this would normally torment the thought processes and ability to behave as normal human, it will make a person ill to an extent that he or she will turn into taking arms, guns or something to become a militant or at the least a voilent person. Which is the height of beeing a militant, I would have appreciated such militantancy in him if had followed that path, butDr.Ambedkar did the opposite, even in such circumstances Dr.Ambedkar was showing his most humane side of it or he was humane beyond the human qualities we see in our society. The atrocity against him was like a crucification that he went through? I would have enjoyed even if Dr.Ambedkar had turned as a rebel (which is also a militant behavior), but Ambedkar did not turned into any of those, no he did not turned into a rebel or some murderer of some sorts!.

On the contrary, Dr.Ambedkar galvanized all his internal and external resources and strenghts to deal with this inhumane conditions head on, he educated himself despite all this shortcomings, after basic education, he uplifted himself into an intellect. This way his endeavors were to face the trillions of hindu tabos and the pathology of castes in the hindu society. Only intellecutalism in him empowered Dr.Ambedkar to fight with this whole barbaric hindu system and he did not use the militancy in him.

Remember one thing, Brahmins and the Hindu society is so badly fu...d up, the only thing in the world that can defeat the hard wired pathology of hindu and varna social anarchy is intellecualism. We have seen militants after militants, the good, the ugly and the bad militants who have failed to succeed using militancy approach. However, ONE SCHOLAR with great intellectualism was able to defeat, crush and destroy those brahminical monarchy of Indian society. That was and is Dr.Ambedkar, ......why and how would you refer such nobel qualities as militant approach?. I realy love to see a militant approach to throw out the damn caste virus, but it did happen by militant way.

The strategy that helped Dr.Ambedkar is the existence of enormous human integrity in Dr.Ambedkar as a human at a time period where human rights did not exist. in Indisa, ofcourse human rights are quite alien to Indian society even at present.

It was a time an untouchable might have been crushed like an insect, at that age Dr.Ambedkar did not sway away from good thoughts and good deeds to himself and to the society, as a matter of fact good deeds to the whole nation. So imagine, if Dr.Ambedkar is alive today and if he happens to hear this "militant" word, he might say oh good lord Buddha whatever happened this people, am I a militant? or have I used militancy in my approach?.

Jack, your examples and reasons are compelling and good ones as to why you have used the term, neverthless, I wish you will find some sense in my explanations.

Though some of Bhimarao's writings or thoughts would have had inclination towards Marxism and some such ideals, though his speeches and writings were fiery and like a wild fire but he stood beyond the militant approach, he would have easily became a gun holding militant if not a pen holding militant or for that matter a militant with pen and blood inside the pen. But, he was not?.

Furthermore, an english word such as militant has about half a dozen meaning, if you try to go through all those actual meaning of those words, it would be hard for me or anyone to be convinced if we can realy refer Bhimarao with that term, besides one of the meaning for this word is that "one who is not accepted widely or who's ideas are not accepted widely??". This is another good reason why this term is not right to use as does not fit Dr.Ambedkar, his work and principles are most widely accepted and used then and used widely now. As a matter of fact, though there were Hindu's against Dr.Ambedkar's upraisal and his social activities at that time, majority of Indians subtly appreciated his great service and nobel touch on the Indian society and on India.

Jack, you are a scholar, you are bestowed with great writing asset in you, sometime a little care or appropriate way of saying it will strengthen your creativity and the truth. Sorry if I offended you by saying savior of dalits, so what? I did say and mean in a way that one can become a DALIT SAVIOR, ask why not?. A true human of any color or country or society can come forward and clean up a filth like hindu society & filthy hinduism.
Because hindu's are incapable of any human qualities and human realization, whereas foreigners are better equipped with human qualities in them, time and again we have seen this, we had Mother Theresa, but who has to come from outside India and became such a great angel and savior of poor and needy. We had Beverely Nicholls to write about Gandhi was the most dangerous person to the dalits and to majority of sections of Indians as this naked pakri Gandhi was a traitor of the society and especially the downtrodden society, a shame to great human qualities. We had and have these NGOs from US and Europe who came to India to uplift the dalits, never or hardly there were any hindu's who pureheartedly determined and worked to clean up caste pathology that is true then and true now even after 5000 years, not a single Hindu so called upper caste person worth mentioning for this cause, so what this indicates is a foriegner might be better option for dalits in addition to their own dalit intellectuals and activists and messiah's to eliminate the caste. The dalits themselves are relentlessly fighting to cure the society. Therefore, I believe... it is just possible by a Human only by a Human. Not a hindu animals. Though dalits are the best to uplift their society themselves than others, it is not a pre-requisite, what is a pre-requisite here is to change and uplift the society by someone with great human quality, by someone who has the passion, love and care for fellow humans. After all, the truth prevails, the truth triumphs, not the filthy social system. And the best examples for this is Dr.Ambedkar, there are millions of his followers are the other good examples.

It is nice to see people like you and Bhupinder are coming forthcoming to talk and write about dalits, and thanks for beeing so thoughtful. Your service will shed some light on the darkest nation on earth, the Hindu India. The darkest and dirtiest and poorest nation on earth, the Hindu India.

What India needs now is a Humane India, where all men are equal. We do not want Hinduism which teaches there are pure men and there are impure men, it teaches saying there are warriors and there are outcastes, such bullshits need to be eliminated from the face of the earth, not only from India, but from Nepal, but from Pakistan, but from UK and from all over the world where dalits are mistreated. Only then, this barbaric Indians can claim any nationhood for India let alone claiming it as a powerful nation!.

Saint

mynameisnobody said...

I am sorry to intrude again but if you go through your post again and revaluate my remarks you will find that I was right even according to you!
Your sources are from non-Indians who can barely scratch at the problem.
If you are keen than send me an e-mail on carftytony@yahoo.co.in we will have long discussion on it as long as you can. We can discuss points , counterpoints and critical reviews. And of course the debate. The never ending debate. In the process I hope that you would help me in getting rid of my small minded view.

mynameisnobody said...

please include catzdrool also.

Human Rights Blogger said...

Hello mynameisnobody,

It is ironic to call you with this term (ID), but it is a free world and one has the liberty to call in any way they want, just like procrastinating to the terms Iyer/Iyangars/Shastri etc?. However, I like your mynameisnobody, because at the philosophical level, there are quarter million people who can say this my name is nobody?. the colorful caste system did not include them because the god was angry and told them human beeings are pure and impure...LoL.

In your first one liner comment, I did not get the actual perception of you about castes in India. Though I tried to grasp your point, I think you need to clarify what you actually mean.
It is not clear whether or not you are arguing in favor of caste system and upper caste or the opposite?. Whatever, you have to spell this out for our better understanding.

I have two blogs that extensively dissect out issues, when you find some time visit those blogs:
http://upliftthem.blogspot.com
http://greatscholar.blogspot.com

This is not in any selfish motivated means that I ask you to go there, but researching and analyzing social and human issues are painful and cumbersome, I believe you will find it worth your time, later we can continue to argue on issues one at a time?.

Jack Stephens said...

mynameisnobody: Ah, nice to see you comment again, well, not really. For your backward views I refer you to my comment I gave to you up above. As for non-Indian sources. I use Indian and non-Indian in both of my posts. But that really doesn't matter since you see all whom are not upper caste Hindu as only seeing "darkness." Please do me a favor (and you won't hear me say this that often against others in this blog) use your brain and think critically. The type of views you hold are the type that get Dalits, Muslims, and others in India murdered and left behind in economic and social poverty.

Human Rights Blogger said...

Well said Jack, it was a good dose to mynameisnobody. But, I am inclined to sidline him as not brainy or any such thing. Mynameisnobody seems to have good understanding of dalits and casteistic bloody Indians, but he is probably going through the learning curve of how to put his thoughts in a right way about dalits.

I just read an article in his bla bla blog about some shitty Shilpa Shetty or someone, who seems to be an actor and someone in UK made some stupid comments and the whole media is salivating to write and get some hits on their news papers and pages. But, mynameisnobody wrote a very truthfull and strong response as to why this bloody hindu's worry if someone made any racist comments?. He quoted the unfortunate dalits in AIIMS, the all india institute of (I call it all India institute of mentally retartedS) medical sciences.
He is write about what he wrote in this blog. It might be worth looking reading, though there are typos and grammatical issues there, overall, I liked about the racist and casteistic daily issues in India.

but I hope mynameisnobody will improve his horizon about things. I need to read your whole blog, there seems to be lots of stuff that needs more time to go through. But, I will.
Saint

Anonymous said...

"The Aryan Invasion" is a theory, its not a proven fact. Recent studies have shown that north and south indians have more common genes that not aryans.
Its more of theory propagated by british empire to diminish the indian culture.