Followers

Thursday, March 17, 2016

Caste atrocities and political abdication

The murder of a 22-year-old Dalit man at Udumalpet in western Tamil Nadu has brought to the fore the worst aspects of today’s Tamil society: the resurgence of caste pride, a shameless disregard for individual rights when they are in conflict with the hegemonic order, and an anachronistic belief in the notion of caste purity and pollution. That a group of mercenaries could casually surround V. Shankar and his 19-year-old wife Kausalya, and brutally slay one of them and leave the other seriously wounded on the edge of a busy road does not merely indicate a lack of fear of the law. It demonstrates a disquieting confidence that no one would dare challenge or pursue them. Often characterised as ‘honour killings’ because their motivation arises from the idea that a woman marrying outside her community brings dishonour to the family, such murders in India normally involve family members rendering brutal ‘justice’ to the ‘transgressor’ within. In recent years, it appears to work in a different way in Tamil Nadu. In such murders, the victims are often Dalits, for daring to transgress social mores to marry someone deemed to be above their station in life. Thus, E. Ilavarasan, a Dalit youth whose marriage to a Vanniyar woman led to caste riots in November 2012 and whose body was found on a railway track in July 2013, and Gokulraj, another Dalit youth murdered for talking to a Gounder girl last year, were clearly victims of caste atrocities.
In the case of Shankar, too, the emphasis seemed to be mainly on wreaking vengeance against a Dalit man; though the element of punishing the family member too was present, as Ms. Kausalya was also attacked with long knives and remains in hospital. Whether in alleged defence of imaginary family honour or as a strike against Dalit assertion, such murders have become disturbingly frequent. The regrettable part of the entire episode is that major political parties tend to condemn such murders only in general terms, and avoid any mention of the role of dominant castes. Seldom do they confront the arrogance of some castes that enjoy political patronage and operate as enforcers of norms in some regions, especially targeting Dalits. Caste groups have become powerful political lobbies. Caste associations attract young and educated members of the community. Shockingly, Shankar’s murderers drew fulsome praise on social media from committed caste adherents. There is a shallow debate over whether present-day caste consciousness indicates the failure of the Dravidian social reform movement in Tamil Nadu. It is futile to blame social reformers who fought for caste-based reservations when it is the political leadership of recent years that has given credence and credibility to caste icons. Tamil society, which prides itself on its cultural moorings, needs to look inwards. Freedom to choose who to love has been seen to be a distinguishing sign of progressive societies. That it can be denied in this day and age is a disgraceful commentary on our times.
The Way To Gain Is To Give Selflessly


The Bhagwad Gita is a scientific manual on self-management. It explains the nature of the world, your personality and the technique of right contact with the world. It insulates you from shocks of life and enables you to enjoy the thrills without pain and suffering.The world is a mix of pairs of opposites; it is constantly changing and is unpredictable. In this scenario to count on a fixed pattern that suits you is like expecting to always win at gambling! Assess the world, your surroundings and the people you interact with regularly . Understand all these elements for what they are and accept them. Everyone is bound by their inherent nature and cannot act apart from inborn traits. Once you come to terms with this you will not expect an angry person to be gentle or a hysterical person to be sane. You will know exactly how to deal with them without getting upset.
Look within. What motivates you and drives you to action? How is it that at times you are serene and tranquil, at most times agitated and disturbed, and at still other times lazy and indolent? What are your strengths and weaknesses?
Are you happy being the way you are or do you want to become a better person?
Arjuna, an outstanding warrior, collapses on the battlefield of Kurukshetra, unable to face the war. Krishna, his dear friend and charioteer, delivers the sermon of the Gita that revives and rehabilitates him. Arjuna then fights the battle and wins it! So will you be able to overcome your problems and emerge victorious.
The first lesson the Gita teaches is to act on the sane counsel of the intellect and not on the whims and fancies of the mind. Use your existing intellect.Strengthen it. Think, reflect, question.The mind tricks you, distracts you and eventually destroys you. It is the intellect that keeps you on course.
Fix a goal beyond your limited, self centred interests. Develop a larger world-view. Rise above myopic concerns. Shift from profiteering to offering your talent for benefit of others.Then prosperity will rain down on you. The way to gain is to give. People who think of themselves and make demands on others are miserable. The few who think of others and serve them are happy . When your thought shifts from u' your desires drop and you `me' to `you' your desires drop and you evolve spiritually .
Move from a strongly entrenched feeling of separateness to that of oneness. The Rig Veda speaks of the whole universe being one family . Today you see enemies within the family! Partners are viewed as opponents, benefactors as malefactors. But the spirit of oneness can turn drudgery to revelry , mediocrity to excellence. Loving people are happy .People with negative emotions feel isolated and despondent. Most importantly , oneness paves the way to Enlightenment.
Shankaracharya defined knowledge as ­ nitya anitya viveka vichara ­ reflection on the distinction between the permanent and impermanent. Everything in the world is passing, ephemeral, transient. The wise one does not invest in the world. He looks for the permanent in and through the impermanent. And you merge with the permanent.
Live life wisely. Do not sell yourself short. Go for infinite happiness ­ your birth right. The world will be at your feet.
68% of milk adulterated, new kit to test in 40 sec
New Delhi
TIMES NEWS NETWORK


With over 68% of the milk in India found adulterated in a 2011 Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) study , the government is working towards providing an accurate, portable test kit for the important staple.Science and technology minister Harsh Vardhan told the Lok Sabha that a new scanner had been developed which can detect adulteration in milk in 40 seconds, and pinpoint the adult rant.
Earlier, for every type of adulteration, a separate chemical test was required.Now a single scanner can do the job, he added. The scanner is priced at about Rs 10,000, and each test would cost a mere 5 to 10 paisa.
Most common adulterants found in milk are detergent, caustic soda, glucose, white paint and refined oil, a practice considered “very hazardous“ and which can cause serious ailments. Vardhan said in the near future, even GPS-based technology could be used to track the exact location in the supply chain where the milk was tampered with.
Source: Times of India, 17-03-2016

Wednesday, March 16, 2016

Source: Mainstream, VOL LIV No 12 New Delhi March 12, 2016

Lord, Why am I Banned from Your Abode? Women’s Entry into Places of Worship


by Ram Puniyani
One is witnessing strange incidents where the women from Muslim and Hindu community are facing similar obstacles. This relates to the issue of entry into places of worship. While the women from the Bhumata Brigade are struggling to get entry into the Shani Shingnapur temple (Ahmednagar, Mahrashtra), the Muslim women are fighting a legal battle to restore their access to the mazar of Haji Ali Dargah in Mumbai. In yet another incident, the women are trying to get the right of worship in the Sabarimala temple. The Hindu women in an act of brave initiative landed up in many buses to the Shani Shingnapur temple, where they were denied entry while the police had to resort to some force to prevent their entry.
In the case of Shani Shingnapur, while men are allowed entry to the Chabutara (raised platform), it is believed that going to the Chabutara will be a bad omen for women as Lord Shani (Saturn) will cast an evil eye. So it is claimed that prohibiting women to enter is a matter of spiritual science. Sanatan Prabhat, the Rightwing daily, says that the movement of women must be prevented to save the Hindu traditions. In response to the agitation led by Trupti Deasai of the Bhumata Brigade, the spiritual Guru Sri Sri Ravishankar of Art of Living tried to mediate between the women’s group and the temple trustees. Interestingly, he advised that neither the women nor the men should be allowed to the Chabutara. The matter is being negotiated; a solution does not seem to be in sight. Also the RSS mouthpiece Organiser opines that while initiating any move to amend the existing regulations, care should be taken to preserve the tradition and prestige of these places.
In the case of the Sabarimala shrine, the argument is that the Lord is a celibate and the women in the menstrual age-group will be distracting him. One recalls that one IAS officer, who happened to be a woman, had visited the shrine for overseeing the arrangements in readiness for the pilgrimage in her official capacity. She was also denied entrance on the ground of her being a woman. In the case of Haji Ali in Mumbai the local women’s group, the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan, has filed a writ in the court demanding that the entry of women to the mazar be restored. The women’s groups have cited different clauses of the Constitution where one has equality before the law and that one cannot be discriminated against on the ground of gender. The argument of the Dargah trustees is on the ground of security of women, which, to say the least, is ridiculous. In the case of Sabarimala the earlier argument that the path to the shrine is difficult for women on the ground of security was later clarified by the Devaswom Board, Travancore by stating that the ‘real’ reason for denying entry to women was the celibacy of Lord Ayappa.
Muslim women have a varying degree of access to the mosques, much lesser in the South Asian countries than in countries like Turkey, for example. In Hindu temples the entry is again not uniform; there are different pretexts to prevent their full access to the places of worship. While in many countries the law for equality is very much there, the traditions and controllers of these places have been preventing the women from having full access to the holy deity. The patriarchal control over access to top places of worship is there in varying degrees.
This does not apply to churches in general, where access is not the issue; what is talked there is why women do not have the right to be on the higher levels of priesthood. In Hindu temples, Muslim mosques and shrines the women priests are practically not there; some claims of such positions are more as an exception than as a rule or norm.
In the case of India where equality is guaranteed by law, these laws of equality cannot ensure entry into the places controlled by the conservative trusts. The controllers of insti-tutions of religion generally turn them into exclusive male bastions, though the degree of control and its expression could be of varying magnitude. In the Hindu fold there is an additional factor—that of caste. One understands there is ‘caste in the practice’ of Muslims and Christians also, but so far as the places of worship are concerned, they are accessible to all, irrespective of caste. One recalls the struggles of Babasaheb Ambedkar for temple entry, the Kalaram Temple agitation, before he decided to renounce Hinduism by describing it as Brahminic theology. As such most religions do have the hierarchical structure in-built into the institution of religion.
Talking of South Asia as a whole, the mosques, dargahs and temples have a lot of rigid rules as far as women are concerned. These are the norms which are imposed by tradition. Thus we see a bit of variation in different religions, as far as treating women is concerned. As such it is the differential treatment and this depends on the degree of secularisation of the particular institution and particular country and region. By seculari-sation we mean the extent of erosion of hold of the landlord-clergy combine on the society. No uniform pattern is discernible but at the core there is the understanding which regards women as inferior beings, secondary to men, being regarded as the property of men, so to say.
Earlier it was regarded that their secondary position is purely due to biological functions; with time and with the impact of the women’s movement, it is clear that the gender roles are psychological and social, determined by time and location. In early matriarchal societies women had a predominant role in the family and social affairs. With the rise of the slave society and later the feudal society, women’s subservient role came to be the norm. Again, with Industrial Revolution and the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity gaining political ground, women started entering into the social space and the social equations started changing towards those of equality. As the degree of secularisation is different, the degree of success of women towards equality is different. In nations which saw industrial revolutions, the path to women’s equality there was paved by the underlining slogan of revolutions or social transformations. Still, the equality of women has not been automatic, there was a path of struggle through which women expressed their aspira-tions, longings and struggled for new equations towards equality.
The movement for gender equality again has highs and lows, ups and downs. Currently one understands that politics in the name of any religion, fundamentalism-communalism, is the politics of the status quo to begin with and then it aims to throw back the society to the earlier feudal values of caste and gender hierarchy. Talking of recent times, the world witnessed this first in the form of the rise of Christian fundamentalism in America in the decade of the 1920s, in the face of the rise of the industrial society with modern education and industrialisation coming to the fore. In the societies which had to undergo the painful experience of Fascism, Nazism, there also the role of women was defined to be in the confines of ‘Kitchen, Church and Children’ by the political ideology, which can be regarded as the close cousin of religious nationalism. With the coming of Islamic fundamentalism again an attempt was made to further subjugate women to lower positions in society. The cover of Islam was used for this social-political agenda. Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan are a few examples of that.
Here in India we saw the rise of majoritarian and minoritarian communalism. Both these again try to push back the women, to restrict their social space, all in the name of religion. With the rise of religious nationalism in India, various issues came up giving a glimpse of the attitude towards women. Many of these are not fully blown-up pictures, but they are rooted in the goal of subjugation of women, in the language of the Sharia or a sophisticated version of the Manu Smriti. In India while the secularisation process, the overthrow of the hold of the landlord-clergy combine, remained half way through, with the assertion of religious nationalism, primarily Hindutva, the striving of women for equality is being countered strongly.
In the ideology of dominating Hindutva, the subordination and secondary position of women is asserted by invoking the noble traditions. In the literature from Gita Press, Gorakhpur, the major publication promoting traditional conservative values amongst Hindus, which is generally the base of Hindutva politics, one can see millions of books being distributed which advise the home-making role, the ideal of sati (women being burnt on the funeral pyre of their husband), the stree dharma (duties of women as ordained by their religion) are propounded, Instructions to women about the dress code and choice of life partner are handed down. One of the major agenda of the divisive lovejihad campaign is to restrain the Hindu girls, to do away with their choice in matters of life and choice of life partner.
Overall the role of religious institutions has been to maintain the social status quo, And the issues related to priesthood in holy places, the entry to these shrines do reflect the same in varying degrees. It seems that despite the obstacles, the women from different religious communities are making their statement loud and clear that their march towards equality cannot be halted by these institutions, and that is the portent of these moves for entry to the abodes of the Lord!
The author, a retired Professor at the IIT-Bombay, is currently associated with the Centre for the Study of Secularism and Society, Mumbai.

This attack on Nivedita Menon

The malicious campaign against the JNU professor is not about expressing dissent, but about bullying and intimidation. It creates a situation where the laws of the land are seen as irrelevant

A notable feature of the university protests that have rocked the nation in recent times is the prominent presence of women. Dalit research scholar Rohith Vemula’s mother Radhika was hounded by the media, and her personal life vilified in the attempt to prove that Rohith was not a Dalit. The faculty members from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) who came to the Patiala House courts for JNU Students’ Union president Kanhaiya Kumar’s bail hearing and were attacked by irate ‘patriotic lawyers’ were mostly women. In Allahabad, the first woman president of the Allahabad University Students’ Union, Richa Singh, has faced physical intimidation from her political opponents who are now seeking other ways to oust her from the university. The latest in this series is JNU professor Nivedita Menon against whom a concerted campaign seems to have been launched, including media attacks and malicious police complaints.
One of the events that JNU teachers conducted in solidarity with students in the course of the campaign against JNU as a supposed den of anti-nationals was a series of lectures on nationalism. Professor Menon delivered a lecture in Hindi called “Nation, a daily plebiscite” in which she made the argument that the formation of one nation does not automatically end all nationalist aspirations. Drawing attention to histories of nation formation as crucial to understanding present-day conflicts, she also discussed Kashmir’s complicated history of accession to India.
These lectures are available on YouTube, and some days afterwards, a TV channel started a campaign, continuously playing video clips taken out of context (including a clip from a speech at a political event in 2014), calling Prof. Menon anti-national, and creating an atmosphere of threat, intimidation and incitement to mob violence. In addition, according to media reports, two police complaints have been filed against her in Delhi by organisations linked to the Bharatiya Janata Party, and a complaint lodged against her in a court in Kanpur. The complaints against her are, in effect, part of a right-wing offensive to lay claim to nationalism by attacking any mode of dissent as anti-national.
Does this mean that men are ‘patriots’ and women ‘dissenters’? Any such claim is immediately demolished, of course, by the powerful presence of militant right-wing women like Uma Bharti and generations of ‘sadhvis’ known for their incendiary demagoguery, from Rithambhara to Prachi. So there are plenty of women ‘patriots’. The real distinction is that it is those women who lay claim to the legacy of feminism who are being singled out as ‘dissenters’. Why is this happening? Why are feminist scholars like Prof. Menon being targeted? What exactly is Indian feminism and what are the forms of dissent that feminists in India have adopted? How have feminists become leaders in the present struggles over democracy in India and why is this being perceived as dangerous?
Feminism in India

First and foremost, feminism in India, going back to the nineteenth century, has never had the luxury to simply be about women. This is because the struggles over women’s wrongs and rights in the Indian context have always been tied to larger issues — to the histories of colonialism and nationalism before Independence; to the meanings of development after 1947; and to the conflicts over democracy today. Feminists have been demonstrating how the hierarchies of gender in India are intertwined with those of caste; how the promises of national development remained unfulfilled for the vast majority of women; and how families have often turned into sites of the worst violence against their very own women.
Second, we as feminists have had to learn over and over again that our movements can only grow if we do not claim immunity from our own tools of critique and dissent. Some of the fiercest debates witnessed in the Indian women’s movement have therefore been internal ones, addressed to each other. Prominent examples of such debates include those over a uniform civil code; over the need and direction for reserved seats for women in Parliament and legislatures; and over how best to combat the scourge of female foeticide.
It is therefore particularly shameful, but also revealing, that sections of the electronic media and countless vicious trolls on social media have tried to instil fear by singling out Prof. Menon among other teachers as an alleged ‘anti-national’. Anyone who is even remotely familiar with her writings should know better. Prof. Menon has drawn from prior scholarship (both in India and abroad) to lay out why, in fact, simple universal theories of women’s subordination will not work in contexts like India. By tracing the effects of colonial rule and the many responses to it, she has demonstrated how both community rights and individual rights have played themselves out in our history, and continue to have a massive impact on women’s equality and freedom to this very day. Some of her finest work takes issue with other feminists in offering a dissenting interpretation of the problems women face. Will a blanket demand for one-third reservation of seats actually be the best strategy for the women’s movement, or should we ‘call the bluff’ of those who demanded a sub-quota? Equally provocatively, might the sheer demand to combat sexual violence against women rebound against the basic freedom from violence that the women’s movement seeks to protect? Such examples could be multiplied. Lest anyone be misled, these are all feminist arguments that work through a form of dissent that simultaneously upholds feminist ways of seeing and feminist forms of struggle.
Does this mean that everything that a scholar like Prof. Menon writes or believes should demand our assent? Not at all. I cannot think of anyone who is more open to disagreement and welcoming of constructive dissent, and who, in fact, encourages this attitude from students and colleagues alike.
An undemocratic mindset 

That is precisely why we are outraged not by the fact that people disagree with Prof. Menon or want to question her views, but by the mode in which they are choosing to do so. The malicious campaign we have witnessed in recent days is not about expressing dissent; it is about bullying and intimidation. It reveals a deeply undemocratic mindset that offers no arguments of its own, but tries to capture public attention by repeated, sensationalised attacks that work by twisting statements and taking them out of their context. What is truly worrisome is that it does not just stop at this; this campaign goes far beyond the limits of public debate to make opponents fear for their lives by whipping up a frenzy and creating a situation where the laws of the land are seen as irrelevant. These are acts of cowardice, not bravery, least of all acts of heroism in the service of Mother India.
Such campaigns are also revealing because they inadvertently recognise the transformational potential of feminism in India today. For feminism believes that genuine gender equality can only come about where fundamental freedoms are guaranteed for all, and where no other forms of oppression can flourish. This is the legacy that feminists in India have been striving for so long to bring to fruition, and which is therefore perceived as being so dangerous. This is also the tradition that Prof. Menon has embodied with integrity and force. And if there are those who would attack such a feminism, they should at least have the courage to attack us all.
(Mary E. John is with the Centre for Women’s Development Studies, Delhi. E-mail: maryejohn1@gmail.com)

Terrorism and communal violence must carry same stigma and punishment

Three men have been marched to the gallows in recent years in India. All three were convicted of terror crimes. By contrast, I cannot recall a single person awarded the death penalty for communal violence since Independence.
Yakub Memon, convicted for complicity in the 1993 Bombay terror blasts, spent 21 years in prison without a day’s parole before his hanging. Maya Kodnani, convicted for being what the trial court described as the ‘kingpin’ in the 2002 massacre in Naroda Patiya which left 97 people dead — including 35 women and 36 children who were burnt alive, stabbed and dismembered — was awarded imprisonment for life. But she was granted three months’ bail in November 2013 for medical treatment, and the Gujarat High Court confirmed her bail for ill-health from July 2014, which continues until the time of writing.
In both popular, social common sense and the ways in which the laws are designed and implemented in India, there is an implied hierarchy of crimes, in which gravest crimes are seen to be those connected with terror and violence, meriting harsh laws, criminal procedures that severely curtail human rights of the accused, and stricter penalties including death. However, communal violence is akin to terror crimes because it is also driven by hate ideologies and target innocent populations with death and destruction. It is remarkable that these do not carry the same censure and disgrace as terror crimes, both in popular morality and in the framing and implementation of the law.
This hierarchy of crimes was accepted in the Law Commission report, chaired by progressive Justice AP Shah, which recommended the abolition of the death penalty in all crimes except terror-related ones and waging war against the State. This same idea — that crimes of terror fall into a different category from other crimes, including those that target people for their religious and caste identities — is the rationale for special terror laws in India (as in many parts of the world). These laws dilute accepted standards of human rights protection of the accused. They permit statements before police officials as evidence admissible in courts, ignoring that such statements may have been coercively obtained by torture. They delay the period for communicating charges and submitting charge-sheets, and discourage bail.
There are some who argue that these human costs are regrettable but inevitable when the country battles the ever-looming perils of terror attacks; the costs of possible injustice to a small number are morally acceptable to protect the majority from terror violence. This is a deeply problematic position because justice is indivisible and injustice to some cannot result in authentic justice for the many. However, even in a practical sense, officially sanctioned and effected injustice can only breed fear and discontent that would further imperil the social order.
Remarkably, the same arguments are not applied to communal hate crimes. We have studied the aftermath of many communal massacres since Independence, and what binds them all is the pattern that few, if any, are punished for these crimes. This is the outcome of the communal bias or apathy of all arms of the criminal justice system: The police, prosecution, and courts; and the political, social and economic powerlessness of the victims of communal crimes. Among the survivors of these crimes — many of whom fight epic and hopeless battles for justice like the widows of the 1984 Sikh massacre or the survivors of the 2002 Gujarat massacre — there is little popular outrage that these crimes go unpunished. Unlike for terror crimes, there is no demand for special laws and procedures to ensure different standards of gathering evidence, issuing bail and punishment for those who commit hate crimes against persons of a particular religion or caste. We wish to see those responsible for the 1993 Mumbai blasts hang, but we are indifferent when those named guilty by the judicial commission for the Mumbai communal killings in 1992-93 continue to walk free.
I am neither making a case for death penalty for perpetrators of communal violence, nor for the dilution of their basic human rights. What I am arguing is that both popular stigma and the imperative of law should apply equally to those who are alleged to participate in terror crimes as those who are charged with hate crimes targeting persons for their religious or caste identity. The selectivity of or popular outrage and the application of the majesty of the legal system reveals a very troubling underlying majoritarian bias in society and law. A majority of those charged with terror crimes are religious minorities. While a majority of those charged with communal crimes are from the majority Hindu community, its victims are mostly religious minorities.
If law and social outrage apply so differently when the minority is charged with hate crimes from when they are the paramount victims of mass hate crimes, then the promises of a secular Constitution — of equal treatment of all before the law — stands exposed, in tatters.
Harsh Mander is convener, Aman Biradari
Source: Hindustan Times, 16-03-2016
 Selflessness is Love


Selfless action is the outward expression of selfless love.When the heart is filled with love, it expresses itself in the form of unselfish action. One is a deep inner feeling and the other its outward manifestation. Without deep, unconditional love, selfless actions cannot be performed.In the initial stages of our awakening, the actions we perform in the name of selflessness are not selfless, because the love we feel for ourselves is present in everything we do and say . In fact, at the beginning of our journey , our selflove becomes the driving force for each of our actions, even if we choose to call them selfless.Love for the ego, or oneself, is the predominant feeling in every human being. Unless this feeling recedes, real selflessness will not emerge.
Alertness is necessary to prevent the ego from interfering.It is easier to be in love with the ego than feel truly inspired by the ideal of selflessness.
Generally , the selflessness we speak of is actually selfish, because everything stems from the ego. Nothing can be selfless unless it springs directly from the heart, from our true Self.That is why sages have said you should know your own Self before you can love and serve others selflessly . You have to be free of the mind to be selfless.
By helping others, we are, in fact, helping ourselves. On the other hand, we harm ourselves by being selfish. Whenever you perform a good or bad action, it is reflected in the Universal Consciousness. Therefore, learn to be selfless and proffer blessings on one and all.