Smt. HappyHindu,
My position in this matter is that it is necessary to record our disfavour on all types of discrimination, whether caste-based, or race-based or on any other basis. I do not find any significant differences as between caste-based discrimination and racism, despite your arguments.
Alright sir we shall agree to disagree. I agree discrimination of all kinds are bad. However, my position is that casteism is a much more worse form of discrimination than racism.
What I object to strongly is the double standards - looking at the racial discriminations aginst AAs and Latin Americans as something not very bad and criticizing the Indian caste system with hellish fury as though the whole world is one beautiful egalitarian system and only India with its castes is the only single blot on humanity.
Do Americans feel that discrimination against African-Americans and Latin-Americans is "not bad"? If they do, i condemn that strongly. There may be racist people everywhere. And they need to be pulled up. However, is racism widespread and accepted by the American public as part of ritual practice in a religion?
I would request Nara Sir and Yamaka Sir to elaborate on the American situation more. How widespread is Racism in the US?
Btw sir, simply by comparing with racism does not make casteism somehow less-blameworthy.
I suppose the AAs have their black churches and do not go to the whites' churches where they are not favoured.
Nara sir and Yamaka Sir, please let us know if such a thing is happening even today?
You may say the sudras were denied their own temples but that is only a partially true statement because almost all castes right down to the doms had their own gods, kuldevata temples and priests for those.
Your statement is simply not true. If you are speaking of Kuladevata temples, you have to concede that we are speaking of clans, not varna. Varna system did not exist until 200 AD atleast in Tamilakam.
Social changes and opposition of caste rigidity surfaced around 7th century. And that happened after 'vedic brahmins' entered tamilakam from 100 AD to 700 AD. We could write reams how the brahmins-kshatriyas denied men entry into their own kuladevata temples.
We could also write reams who were these kuladevatas. If you look at the Kuladevatas of 'lower-castes', their deities are those who opposed caste-system (madurai veeran, the kuladevata of many parayar families, is an example).
Again, back in time, vira-kals (hero stones) were erected for men who died in war (fighting against other tribes), a mark signifying opposition to subjugation. Subjugation can be opposed if it is open and direct, but it gets miserably tricky if it works cunningly thru the platform of "spiritualism".
Caste structures must have loosened up during muslim invasions, which is why we find rulers / chieftains in Vijayanagar Period drawn from low-castes.
Just because people found the freedom to move along ranks, build temples since the past 500 years, does that absolve the varna system of wrong-doing? Sir, is there any evidence that Doms (or any low-caste group) had their own temples with priests before the 11th century?
I have looked at details of trade guilds for whom the kapalikas, kalamukhas were priests. Undoubtely these managed to thrive even after 8th century, despite being declared heterodox by Adi Shankara.
However, these trade guilds were not considered low-caste at that time, much less shudras. So we cannot apply the sensibilities of some specific brahmins who declared folks as shudras in the colonial period to the 'trade guilds' of medival period.
So if you going to produce evidence and say low 'castes' Nakaras / Gavaras had temples before the 11th century, let it be known that we are speaking of different contexts.
Again sir, we could discuss reams why Adi Shankara selected only 6 dieties in the Shanmata system. Quite obviosly dieties apart from the 6 selected by Adi Shankara became 'non-orthodox' in the 8th century. Sir you yourself had written once about Adi Shankara prohibitting Devi worship.
All 6 gods chosen by Shankara are males (was it because of tantra sexuality associated with female dieties??...Or did Shankara's Shanmata reduce temples of female dieties into debauchery ?).
Have always wondered how can those who claim to be 'brahmins', have 'non-orthodox' dieties as kuladevis / kuladevatas. Unless they were elevated as brahmins after the time of Adi Shankara. So you see sir, the context of "who was low-caste" in one period cannot be applied to another period.
Similarly, medieval period sensibilities cannot be applied to colonial period context, with the claim that even 'shudras' had temples with their own priests.
If we speak of varnas in the context of clans / kuladevatas, then i could say, 'brahmins' also arose from low-caste groups (or clans having non-orthodox dieties as kuladevatas). Not just "shudras' or 'doms' or whatever. I wonder how many 'brahmins' are willing to accept that they arose from low-caste 'shudra' groups..
Your comparison to "apples and oranges" is, I am glad to say, truth in its own way. Both are fruits, tasty and some like one better, others the other. Both are basically harmless and can be used for healthy living. Then why should some people start an anti-apple (for example) campaign and cry hoarse about its bad effects and keep quiet as if orange has no bad quality at all and is very desirable and eating orange is crediatble?
Anti-apple campaign? Sir where is the context in which you ask this please?
I feel you will have noticed by now that I am talking about society discriminating - showing differential treatments to some sections which that society itself acknowledges as part of it. It is not about the likes & dislikes at the individual level.
But supposing there is a small neighbourhood in which one person or family does not allow a certain individual to come into the neighbourhood and all the rest of the people in that neighbourhood also individually feel similarly. Then that particular person will become a persona non-grata in that neighbourhood. May be that person belongs to a group similar to the 'thieves' villages' of Tamil Nadu whence gangs come and commit thefts in Kerala often.
In such a situation, all people from that thieves' colony will become "no-entry" people in the neighbourhood first referred to. Can this be objected to as discrimination or is this to be legally allowed as individual discrimination?
I don't know how you will answer, but discrimination, if it is to be allowed at the individual level, will easily become group discrimination, imo. Hence what I feel is that we cannot discriminate between different kinds of discriminations and have to voice our opposition to any kind of discrimination, except those permiited by the law of the land.
Sir, please could you elaborate in what context you are mentioning the "theives" point? Is it merely to justify casteism, under the pretense of 'voicing opposition to any kind of discrimination'?
