This is the DAY !!!
(What? DalIT? oh...... sorry.....)
Posted on 01/22/2010 7:36:14 PM PST by Steelfish
Being Called A Hindu Is Like An Abuse To Me: Dalit Writer Meenakshi Sinha, TNN, 23 January 2010
JAIPUR: "Being called a Hindu is like a gaali (abuse) to me. I use Valmiki as a surname because having one is almost a necessity these days. If you just say Omprakash, it's not enough. People demand a surname as they come from a certain mindset.
Caste envelops every aspect of life in India," said Omprakash Valmiki, leading Dalit writer in Hindi, at the fifth Jaipur literature festival on Friday.
Valmiki was one of three speakers at the session, Outcasts: The Search for Public Conscience with P Sivakami, Dalit novelist and political activist from Chennai. Kancha Ilaiah, political science professor in Osmania University, Hyderabad and author of the bestseller 'Why I am Not a Hindu', was the third speaker. Ilaiah is an OBC by caste.
Sivakami maintained that upper-caste Hindus only have a caste conscience and no public conscience. "They lack human conscience," she said. Sivakami resigned from civil services after 29 years of service to join the Bahujan Samaj Party in 2008.
Valmiki, author of celebrated autobiography Joothan (1997), maintained that Dalits continue to be shunned in the realms of culture, literature and the arts. "And that is despite 60 years of independence and numerous laws guaranteeing their fundamental rights," he said.
His other works include three collections of poetry: Sadiyon ka santap (The centuries-old anguish, 1989), Bas! bahut ho chuka (Stop it! That's enough, 1997) and Ab aur nahin (Not any more, 2009).
(Excerpt) Read more at timesofindia.indiatimes.com ...
Are you serious? I looked up their names a moment ago, and found this, by none other than Kancha Illaiah, whom you seem to champion, apparently:
“The Indian Christian educational institutions taught English to Indian Brahmins and Banias for money. Catholic nuns and monks invested their time and energy in creating a monstrous class of racist and casteist Brahminic forces...”
- Kancha Illaiah, Buffalo Nationalism: A Critique of Spiritual Fascism
ISBN-13: 978-8185604695
Paperback: 206 pages
Publisher: Bhatkal & Sen,India (March 29, 2004)
Who believes in such rot?!!
You’re welcome.
I have studied world religions for years, so I tend to be able to garner details about various faiths, rather quickly.
The Hindu revolt today is against the Dahlits converting to Christianity on account of the missionaries catering their economic and educational needs. And not infrequently, the revolt is accompanied by violence and bloodshed.
The Bible does not condone slavery.
Prophesying that the descendants of Ham will serve their brethren is hardly saying it is ok to kidnap and enslave people.
Biblically, forcible kidnap is a death penalty offense.
Indentured servitude was permitted.
I’m aware of the tribal violence, and it is certainly not one-sided.
Didn’t the violence begin with the assassination of a tribal religious leader?
You have barely replied in context to most of my questions to you, starting with the Jewish cohens. Instead of providing an explanation, you wilfully drag the discussion to wild tangents, as a means of avoiding a direct reply.
Why is that?
Please return to my first reply to you and provide coherent replies to the questions that have already been posed, so that the discussion becomes fruitful, instead of a cat-and-mouse circular chase.
You mean, Biblically?
Please explain.
That was the basis of the European slave trade all the way to the 19th century, and furthered beyond, through indentured servitude.
My claim was that this (the Curse of Ham) was specifically used by many European slavery advocates to condone slavery, encourage it and justify it, as well. Is this false? If so, how?
Studying “world religions” and garnering a few details do not explain an undeniable fact that in this day and age casteism and all its attendant evils is a central tenet of Hinduism in belief, practice, and ritual. That you try to explain this by way of ancient Judeo-practice where the priestly class was confined to “priestly lineage” is both irrelevant and off topic. Irrelevant because it had a noble rationale of passing on the Talmudic wisdom among priestly families, and off-topic because slavery and casteism was anathema to Judaism.
Now, you don’t want me to give you a million citations of all the evil attributes of casteism- do you?
As for early British rule favoring the Brahmin class it cannot be denied that this was a political choice at a time when the ruling class was entirely made up of Brahmins. But the British also stopped the vile Hindu practice of wife burning.
You then attempt to ameliorate the Hindu practice of casteism by Biblical references to slavery. But part of the Bible is the New Testament or the new covenant. The Age of Enlightenment and the renaissance period apparently never reached the shores of Hindu India.
How is it irrelevant that the Jewish priesthood was based on hereditary lineage? Please see your post to which the reply was made, and then look at my reply, and explain what in my reply is divergent. You cannot slip away from explaining this, by merely giving one-sided labels like “irrelevant” or “off-topic”. There is nothing logical about keeping a priestly order hereditary, and your laughable “explanation” of “the noble rationale of passing on the Talmudic wisdom among priestly families” doesn’t quite cut it.
Try again.
Slavery is anathema to reformed Judaism, and not to its former structure. I can point to various references acknowledging this, but I believe you can do that yourself. You mentioned nothing about the Biblical justification that European slave traders propounded, for their activities, almost to the extent of pretending that it never happened.
Please read Kancha Illaiah’s reply again: He was not accusing the British- he was directly laying blame for racism on Christian priests and monks. Look at the excerpt again. He is, after all, someone that you were championing.
Sati, by the way, was nowhere near the norm in Indian society. So too was witch-burning and the like, not a norm of Protestant society, but you seem to have conveniently ignored that as well.
And yes, the British did abolish slavery, but in name only. Indentured servitude, a more palatable name for slavery, was carried on, for decades, if not a whole century and more after the official “abolishment” of slavery. Britain was also rather supportive of the American Confederacy, in spite of their open positions on supporting slavery.
You said that “the Age of Enlightenment and the renaissance period apparently never reached the shores of Hindu India” but somehow they elected a Dalit for president. Have you heard of the term, logical dissonance?
(What? DalIT? oh...... sorry.....)
“My claim was that this (the Curse of Ham) was specifically used by many European slavery advocates to condone slavery, encourage it and justify it, as well. Is this false? If so, how?”
I don’t know what the Europeans, African slave traders, or Americans used to justify their enslavement of black Africans.
But if they used the fact that Ham got cursed, they did not have any logical reason for it.
The Old Testament provides for men to be sold into slavery for a limited time to pay off debt. Their families are supposed to pay it for them first. But if they can’t or don’t:
Exodus 21:1-4 “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”
But slavery as we commonly know of it was forbidden:
Exodus 21:16 “Whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or is caught still holding him, must surely be put to death.
Domination and exploitation was the logical reason for slavery, and the European slave-traders justified it with the Curse of Ham reference. Were they in the right, for doing so? Of course not!
An exploitable loop-hole.
Logical dissonance? Try this. Indian presidents are appointed by legislative assemblies. They are not elected by the people at large. Simply because a minority is elected to high office doesn’t mean that the ritual and practice of casteism so central to Hindu adherents is ipso facto wiped off. This is no more illogical than saying that because a State elects a Black governor, racism has ended.
You continue to beat a dead horse. Institutions of slavery and racism was endemic in all levels of society including religious sects where this was in vogue, very much like the Christian Churches during segregation. Indeed, the Dutch Reformed Church in South Africa did practice apartheid. But why do you reach back decades and millenia to explain away what is endemic to Hindu India both then and now?
Your comment that “Sati was nowhere near the norm in Indian society” to brush off this barbaric Hindu practice is mind-boggling. To make matters worse, you resort to a supreme non sequitur of comparing this to witch-burning and then conveniently affix to it a “Protestant” label. Are you serious? This was a practice that pre-dated Christianity.
You need to admit honestly and forcefully that Hinduism in its primary belief forms, rituals, and practices, indeed how castes sprung up from the mouth of a legendary deity is viewed by many ( at least in the post-Enlightenment period) as a gutter belief perpetuated by millions of illiterates and jealously guarded vi et armis where necessary by equally illiterate Brahmin temple high priests.
Please read what the first Indian Dalit president mentioned, in his inaugural address. I have posted it in one of my comments above.
The reason I reached back in recent history to point out religion-sanctioned (or made so) racism in European history, was because you are oblivious to the fact that you maintain double-standards and pretend to be a neutral arbiter, at the same time. If something is good for the goose, it must be good for the gander as well.
Let me illustrate: You tried to showcase the hereditary priesthood practice in Hinduism (contrary to the very teachings of the Gita) as a unique flaw. When I posted information on the exact same system in Judaism, you tried to explain it away with nonsense like "passing noble Talmudic knowledge within priestly families" or so, as if non-hereditary transmission would soil the "noble Talmudic knowledge". Perhaps you can argue FOR re-establishing hereditary priesthood for Judaism, next?
Please give me the percentage relevance for Sati in India. Also, provide the reason for the curious absence of Sati in the southern states, which have historically been more conservatively Hindu. Also account for why Sati is predominant in those parts of India which saw violent Muslim invasions and rape campaigns.
Also note, you have slyly and conveniently ignored the witch-burnings and other gross murders committed with religious sanction, in Europe. Let me illustrate:
Like with Hinduism, racism was explained away through the Curse of Ham reference, and several verses condoning slavery and indentured, bonded labour. Look above for those verses which someone posted here. Now, will you advocate indentured servitude as Biblically permitted, at least for the Jews, in this day and age? Give me your stance.
The Bhagavad-Gita is quite clear about caste in several passages:
"With joy of light and truth; dwelling apart
Upon a peak, with senses subjugate
Whereto the clod, the rock, the glistering gold
Show all as one. By this sign is he known
Being of equal grace to comrades, friends,
Chance-comers, strangers, lovers, enemies,
Aliens and kinsmen; loving all alike,
Evil or good."
- Bhagavad Gita, Ch: VI, lines 25-32.
"I am alike for all! I know not hate,
I know not favor! What is made is Mine!
But them that worship Me with love, I love;
They are in Me, and I in them!
Nay, Prince!
If one of evil life turn in his thought
Straightly to Me, count him amidst the good;
He hath the highway chosen; he shall grow
Righteous ere long; he shall attain that peace
Which changes not. Thou Prince of India!
Be certain none can perish, trusting Me!
O Prithâ’s Son! whoso will turn to Me,
Though they be born from the very womb of Sin,
Woman or man; sprung of the Vaisya caste
Or lowly disregarded Sudra,—all
Plant foot upon the highest path; how then
The holy Brahmans My Royal Saints?
Ah! ye who into this ill world are come—
Fleeting and false—set your faith fast on Me!
Fix heart and thought on Me! Adore Me! Bring
Offerings to Me! Make Me prostrations! Make
Me your supremest joy! and, undivided,
Unto My rest your spirits shall be guided."
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: IX, lines 113-135.
"He sees indeed who sees in all alike
The living, lordly Soul; the Soul Supreme,
Imperishable amid the Perishing:
For, whoso thus beholds, in every place,
In every form, the same, one, Living Lord,
Doth no more wrongfulness unto himself,
But goes the highest road which brings to bliss.
Seeing, he sees, indeed, who sees that works
Are Nature’s wont, for Soul to use, not love,
Acting, yet not the actor; sees the mass
Of separate living things—each of its kind—
Issue from One, and blend again to One:
Then hath he BRAHMA, he attains!
O Prince!
That Ultimate, High Spirit, Uncreate,
Unqualified, even when it entereth flesh
Taketh no stain of acts, worketh in nought!
Like to th’ ethereal air, pervading all,
Which, for sheer subtlety, avoideth taint,
The subtle Soul sits everywhere, unstained:
Like to the light of the all-piercing sun
[Which is not changed by aught it shines upon],
The Soul’s light shineth pure in every place;
And they who, by such eye of wisdom see
How matter, and what deals with it, divide;
And how the Spirit and the flesh have strife,
These wise ones go the way which leads to Life!"
- Bhagavad-Gita, Ch: XIII, lines 99-125.
As I mentioned before, if Hindus stuck to their own scripture, they would find it impossible to legitimise caste discrimination. No 'Curse of Ham' for them to justify it. You have, so far utterly failed to not only counter this point, but to also account satisfactorily for the glaring exceptions that I have pointed out throughout the comments section of this article to you, not limited to Dalit personalities gaining power in India, the issue of hereditary priesthood, the insane writings of your champion, Mr. Kancha Illaiah, who blames Catholic priests and nuns for Indian racism, the example of a powerful and massively popular Dalit female religious figure, the justifications for slavery and indentured servitude in the Bible, and the like.
I pinged all of you, because I’ve noticed you are familiar with this discussion. Please see my previous post and point out any errors or exceptions.
Thank you, in advance.
Just a observation but in her statement isn't she doing exactly what she accuses others of doing? Grouping people together in a caste and then making a sweeping declaration of what they are and what they can do.
How is her sweeping generality so different?
Because, like Kancha Illaiah and others, she is a racist.
Not unlike “Rev.” Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
Certainly possible. I don’t know enough about her to say one way or another but when I see a quote like that my internal alarms do tend to go off.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.