# If Goanet stops reaching you, contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] # # Want to check the archives? http://www.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet/ # # Please keep your discussion/tone polite, to reflect respect to others #
##########################################################################
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004, rene barreto wrote:
Writing or talking does not help eliminate CASTE , action does.
Do WE have any suggestions as to how this CASTE problem can be addressed ? If so please share them with us on this Goan Forum.
Rene,
There seems to be some confusion creeping in here.
What exactly is *the caste problem*?
Do you mean caste-based discrimination and unjustified/unnecessary feelings of superiority and inferiority? If so, I agree with you fully and more, it indeed is a significant and serious problem.
Some on Goanet are interpreting this 'problem' to mean any acknowledgement of an inherited, caste-based identity. Something which, we assume, needs to be denounced before we can move ahead.
We need to be sensitive to accept that the Hindu position on this would obviously be different from that within Christianity. And I am nobody to sit in judgement on someone else's definition of their self-identity, though I retain my right to criticise 'urban myths' about superiority, etc
R K Nair suggested this difference, when he himself pointed out (some might have missed the suggestion) that his surname makes it clear that he is a Nair (a Kerala-based caste known for its matrilineal traditions). I also do not think it's fair to blast Santosh for an accident of birth, whereas one could and should judge him (or anyone else) for words and actions. As a Helecar, Santosh will be seen as belonging to a certain caste (Saraswat Brahmin, in this case), whether he so defines himself or not. There's little he can do about it, short of disguising/dropping his family name which might be both undesirable or still unhelpful. This is just like as a Noronha I'm seen by the outside world as belonging to a certain religion.
In Christianity, the problem is complex, because this is a religion which doesn't give any theological sanction for the acceptance of caste. For Hinduism, caste is part of the accepted religious world-view, so I don't think anyone from the outside has a right to go and preach in what direction Hinduism should reform itself.
(This reminds me of the hypocrisy evident in demands being made by Hindutva proponents for the reform of Islam, its educational system, its family laws, its attitude towards women, etc. All very easy when it comes to 'reforming' someone else's traditions... it also gives us that smug feeling that we are somehow *superior* than the rest. We aren't!)
As things stand in India today, untouchability has been banned by law. Even if that had some sanction in the past, it was an odious human practise. Caste, in itself, still lives on. In some states, official forms require one to fill in one caste. in the 'sixties and 'seventies, we had a column for 'race and religion', an experience we shared probably with friends in Africa then, and countries like Malaysia till date. So our school authorities hurriedly sorted out this dilemma by getting us to fill in 'Indian Christian'. I don't think any of the racial/racist theories of the past claim that there is an 'Indian' race. (At least not outside of North America, where the White man got it so badly mixed up!) Anyway, that was the way out then.
Reform won't come because outsiders criticise practises of any religion. It has to come when people from within feel the need for change; just as Goa's Devdasi system undertook a remarkable self-transformation in the decades following the 1920s.
Aggressively critiquing and blasting someone else of another religion or culture (unless our intention is to merely score debating points) is unlikely to bring about change.
If Hindus themselves want to reform their religion, it is up to them. It cannot be forced by one-sided critiques from elsewhere.
To demand that a Hindu doesn't believe in a caste categorisation is akin to demanding that Catholics don't believe in religion, and after all religion divides people doesn't it?
Incidentally, I think there is enough theological justification for even an atheist to be a Hindu in the religious sense too, though the same is not true in religions that grow out of Semetic roots. Maybe Dr Helecar will enlighten us about this. Though we know he doesn't define himself in religious terms, my point is that he well could, if he wanted to. Hinduism allows for that. All religions don't have to have exactly the same features to be treated as religions; Buddhism doesn't even believe in a god (sorry, capital G) in the sense say Christianity does.
Also, I don't think 'idol worship' has any negative connotations in Hinduism, as it does in say in Islam or Christianity. Words differ in their meanings across cultures and religions. To be 'communal' in India is obviously a bad thing; in the West, it has connotations of having the wider interests of the community (not in a narrow sense) at heart. When the Russians spoke about their Ministry of Propaganda, it didn't obviously have any negative connotations to them as it does in the West, or else they wouldn't have named it thus.
It is difficult to import concepts across different religions and cultures, just as it is to try and use Microsoft Windows concepts on a GNU/Linux computer or vice versa! Control-C, control-V (cut and paste) isn't just going to work on my GNU/Linux computer, and that doesn't make the latter inferior in any way!
I've been deliberately provocative above, without getting personal. If you think the logic is flawed, just tell me why. FN
