Augusto Pinto wrote: "At least now the notion of "affdunk' or 'touchability' has thankfully disappeared, but when I was young, meaning some 35 years ago, it was still prevalent. It meant that there were some people whom you could touch and drink their water and drink their tea so on without any worry. And there were others you could not."
"I learnt this first hand where I lived then, in my 'ancestral house' in Sangolda, under the same roof as a Shet family, who were themselves looked down upon by Saraswats although they wore a 'zanvem' and called themselves Daivadnya Brahmins'." "There is no way you could be so innocent as you pretend to be. When someone uses the word 'chamars' in a public sphere, the intention, consciously or unconsciously. is to denigrate. Luckily for Parrikar, the Great Rane was in the chair during that Assembly session. Or else we could have seen something historic in the literature of anti-caste-discrimination." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- My response By citing his 35 year old experiences, I wonder what Augusto Pinto is tying to convey. Other than conveying that caste discriminations, caste atrocities and caste differences exist in the Hindu society, things that we are all well aware of, he communicates nothing else. His illustrations do not in any way prove that Manohar Parrikar is a casteist or the remark he made on the Floor of the Assembly is a casteist remark. Everything should be seen from within its context and not from outside of it. A careful perusal or even an elementary reading of Parrikar's remark would quite clearly show that Parrikar has committed no crime. He did not use "chamars" in his diction to denigrate a particular caste or community, as Mr. Pinto wrongly tries to imply. Here are the facts to set the records straight: 1. On the Floor of the Assembly, Parrikar specifically avers that one "Chamar" or cobbler was acting as the agent of police for collecting hafta. 2. The Minister for Sports, Mr. Manohar Azgaonkar, asks the Speaker to expunge the references by Parrikar, on the grounds that Parrikar has made a casteist statement. 3. Parrikar maintains that the person he is referring to is a cobbler, and the term used by him thus relates to occupation and not caste. 4. Rane asks Babu what alternative word Parrikar must use in such an instance. Babu is at a loss for words. 5. The president of the Goa State Scheduled Caste Federation, Mr. Gangaram Morajkar, accepts that the Leader of the Opposition has used the term "Chamar" without an intention to insult anyone, but finds it objectionable nevertheless. Is Parrikar a villain in this episode? Before we brand him as one, we need to make a fair and considerate assessment. On this note I am reminded of the words of Mahatma Gandhi. He said before we do any act, we need to ask ourselves: Is this the Truth? Is it fair to all concerned? There would be a whole lot of reasons why I would want to throw stones on Manohar Parrikar, just as I would want to chuck them on many other Legislators too, but by no stretch of imagination can this be one of them. Words like "chamar" and "mhalo" are konkani words for cobbler and barber and Parrikar's crime, if at all he has committed one, is no bigger or lesser, than those committed by other Goans who use such words periodically in their day-to-day conversations. That was precisely what I was trying to illustrate by quoting the "maid incident". If the professor finds my illustration a pathetic attempt, he must make an honest and sincere attempt to assess his own 35 year old incidents, and ask himself how relevant these are to the present scope of the discussion. Fault Finders will find faults even in heaven. If we are consistently negative, we will find faults with almost everyone and anyone. If you look at the whole world with jaundiced eyes, everything in it will look yellow. Can we be a bit more positive for a change? Cheers Sandeep
