Dear Shri KRS, Greetings!
I know we have fundamentally different world view. That is just fine and makes things interesting I think. Let me state mine and leave it at that. But before I start, this is absolutely an academic exercise. The TN society has gone past Brahminism and those who practice Brahminism, and are unlikely to look back.
The sharing of fruits of labor and specialization was probably quite simple in hunter/gatherer societies. But in an agrarian society, which is what ours was until recently, and still is predominantly, production is a result of labor and land. As long as the land ownership was more or less equitably distributed among those who labor in it, there may not have been any major oppression or exploitation. But that was not so. For whatever reasons, the land owners and those who actually tilled and cultivated have been disparate groups of people.
Even this circumstance may have been alright as long as there was mobility among these disparate groups. But Manu and other Dharmashashthras took care of that. From this point onwards, there was a birth-based permanent labor (Shudra and Dalit) who were forbidden from all things non-manual and non-menial, and there was this birth-based permanent landed groups (Upper varnas) that was able to benefit and amass wealth from the labor of others.
The advantages these upper Varnas were able to enjoy were not limited to just the immediate material benefit, but also the benefits of leisure that came with ownership of wealth. They were able to pursue and excel in intellectual pursuits.
Now, there are two questions that arise, (i) is it just to keep a large proportion of the society permanently under the yoke, for millenia, with a minority enjoying the fruits of their labor, and (ii) is a just society obligated to take corrective action that may cause some minor harm to the privileged groups?
My answer to these two questions is a resounding YES.
Directly or indirectly, the present day upper castes benefited from the oppression perpetrated against the Dalits and other most backward laboring castes. It may be in the form of tangible inheritances, or it may be intangibles such as culture, arts, education, and other intellectual pursuits that were denied to the lowliest of low castes. None of us can say we are not tainted by the advantages that our ancestors extracted through centuries old oppression. If we accept the principle that we deserve to inherit the wealth of our fathers and grandfathers and derive all the benefits of tangible and intangible cultural capital they amassed through the leisure gained from the labor of Dalits, so should we bear the responsibility, if not guilt, of our father's and grandfather's oppression that is at the root of the benefits we enjoy.
The tangible and intangible wealth our ancestors have passed down to us were accumulated through the blood and sweat of those who are now benefiting from the affirmative actions of the government. I read an article in
Hindu couple of days ago about a Dalit boy who got admission to medical school, but can't go because the family will loose the income he brings. (For some reason this article is no longer available in the Hindu site.) Can you imagine any upper caste student facing such a situation?
In the final analysis, I think modern liberal democracies, of which India is one I hope, have an obligation to dismantle the age old barriers built by our ancestors and bring the long oppressed to a level playing field. At least in TN, the government is trying to achieve this without shutting out TBs completely. I am yet to come across one single TB who is working as a day laborer or chittal.
But then, I do not agree that any topic under the Sun could be discussed. For example, I would not want to discuss about the parents and Gurus of a person.
Yes, I agree, truly personal matters must be off limits, like the person himself/herself, family members, etc. But guru/acharya, in as much as they are public figures, must not be off limits. I know what you are getting at. Sai Baba is a controversial figure, there are many for whom he is no less than God, and there are others for whom he is no more than a charlatan. But, in as much as he is a public figure he must not be automatically exempt from criticism. People for whom he is God, must either put up valid arguments or endure the criticism. The same must be true for Sankarachariyar, or Azhagiya Singar, or Andavan. One cannot hide behind long standing tradition to exempt them.
Ok, I think I have said enough. Dear Shri KRS, I am sure you will agree with some and disagree with some other points I have presented, and I respect that. I think I will have nothing more of value to add after this, but I do welcome your response, and I will reply if I think I have anything new to add that is of value.
Cheers and best regards ....
