brihaspati wrote:raji-ji,
If I could recount my long list of experiences, you would understand what I was trying to convey. It is not just about casteism or class-ism. I think throughout all my posts, I have consistently gone against caste-by-birth, and many times have raised my own interpretation of reverting "society as individual" into "individual as society" - advocating recognizing "varna" as all existing simultaneously within the same individual. The reason for this latter line is not entirely theoretical, or abstract, although theory is a result of long attempt at understanding. I found, that from a very practical viewpoint, this was something that was deeply rooted in our populace, and it was far more complicated than the simplistic representation of "upper caste" versus "lower caste". For the so-called "upper caste" attitudes were also present in so-called "lower castes" about "even lower castes". I first thought about trying to invert the existing paradigm, without trying to attack "caste" per se, because of certain experiences I had. This for me was a "majjhim pantha".
Class and caste will be regenerated in every generation, because of thoughts of exclusivism, based on achieved social, economic and "quality" status. True freedom from sectarianism, and class, or exclusivism, is difficult to achieve, and is a constant and lifelong struggle, and only very few in any given generation will ever come close to it.
You would be surprised at the depth of spiritual feeling I came across from among the simplest of "people" at the farthest end of marginal existence. I talked about all the "faith" angle, because of this realization. Maybe contray to expectation, it was contact with this "lower" or "marginal" stratum that, ironically transformed my theoretical understanding from academic Marxist/socialist viewpoint to what has appeared to many as "Hindu", and unfortunately, and "uncomfortably" as pro "H*****va". That this would happen, was not surprising, for those who have thought so, also belong to a purely theoretical understanding of the question.
Instead of fighting, what I felt has become natural, and which I did not find more "superstitious", "backward", "retrogressive", compared to what I have seen in so-called "advanced, educated, liberal" sections, I thought it can be the most convenient centre of gravity for rallying them towards achievement of what is naturally their due as Bharatyias- with the least disruption required civilizationally.
Excellent Post. It was great reading. Because I, maybe less than you, also attempted to experience and relate to lives of people way different than me........up and down the economic scale and also up and down social status in the society. I came away with similar experiences and some different experiences from you. I believe at core, the experiences were the similar, although varied. Among the same people, at the lower end of the social spectrum, I found one set of people who mirrored what you have described. But because my experiences were more with the urban poor as opposed to yours, which I presume were mostly with the rural poor.....I also found a tremendous amount of anger, bitterness, hostility, propensity towards destruction and almost total lack of spirituality among fairly large portion of the urban poor population. I did find, though, some sections even among the urban poor, who were spiritual, simple, constructive, great desire to contribute, great desire to be part of or integrate with the larger. I did find more of that among the rural poor, though.
But the one thing where my experiences differed from yours, was that in North India, where my experiences are limited to, there was no faith or desire to have anything to to with Hindutva or overtly Hindu institutions among both the urban and the rural poor. Maybe, I need to explore more.
Therefore, whereas I want us to do away with castes and classes altogether, you seem to come away with your experiences, thinking that they are so ingrained, perhaps we can make do with some redefinition, refining, back to basics and reform (or a combination).
I would love to discuss our different experiences and our conclusions on how you mobilize large numbers and fashion a new nation.......
Despite differences, I respect your views and firmly believe that this is the discussion we oughta be having.......because you solve this riddle and everything else automatically falls into place.......most of our problems....
Instead, we tend to be jingoistic, wishful thinkers, narrow, and petty........and never get to the root of the problem......because real discussion that you and I would prefer to have is discouraged, gagged, censored and banned
However, you do honour me too much with such superlatives. I had long experience in facing "verbal abuse" of far more piskological intensity within a certain brand of "politics". But I did have a reputation for matching one of your "names" in temper. I have physically beaten to a pulp certain categories of individuals, "toughs", "eve-teasers", etc. and organized to have such individuals or groups neutralized. I will do it again, if necessary. And I could be very dogmatic in my commitments, if not committed to being dogmatic. How do you know what I am really inside? Only someone who has seen the worst in commitments to dogma, can go beyond dogmatic commitments but still be dogmatic in "commitments". Only someone who has struggled with a volcano from childhood understands how to make cold steel out of that heat. 