Further to my own response, pls. find herebelow a regular full-length, and fairly strongly-worded and rather cogently argued, rejoinder, by one - a not-too-unknown activist, bearing a Christian name, to the initial article (available at: < http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/savarna-redemption-why-not-my-name-campaign-part-problem-64288 >.)
Sukla http://www.thenewsminute.com/article/interpreting-not-my-name-lines-not-all-men-wilfully-malignant-64325 Opinion Interpreting ‘Not in my name’ on the lines of ‘Not all men’ is wilfully malignant There is a difference between Hindu and Hindutva just like there is a difference between Islam and jihadists. Ashley Tellis Wednesday, June 28, 2017 - 13:28 Image for representation. This is in response to Rajesh Rajamani's piece in TNM, The Savarna redemption: Why 'Not In My Name' campaign is a part of the problem. ***Rajesh Rajamani’s thoughtless, smug and self-righteous response to the 'Not In My Name' campaign is symptomatic of the rotten identity politics that has paralysed critical thinking and action in the current conjuncture.*** [Emphasis added.] All analogical thinking is flawed but the analogy between 'Not In My Name' and 'Not all Men' as campaigns is simply absurd. 'Not In My Name' does not segregate a subsection of any group. It speaks for a My that is representative of every secular citizen in the country and that includes those of us who are marked non-citizens but still believe in the secular and the democratic. 'Not All Men' speaks of a subset of men who think they are not violent. 'Not In My Name' is a radical disavowal of the politics of hate committed in the name of citizens in a secular democracy. It is the same as the ‘Not My Conscience’ placards that we held when we protested against the President killing Afzal Guru in the name of the nation’s ‘collective conscience.’ And we were beaten by Hindu goons from across the road in Jantar Mantar who were not Brahmins at all. Brahminism, however defined, is not the only structural component of the hatred against Muslims, the specific targets around whom this protest is being held. It is communalism and hatred for Muslims by communities across the board: Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and everyone else. While there is casteism in all these religions, that is simply not the issue here. There is casteism among Muslims too. Does that mean we not protest against the lynchings at all? Brahminism is an ideology and it is in all of us, like structural sexism and structural homophobia It has to be battled every day of our lives. That does not mean we have to belittle protests on other issues, because Brahminism is not the only issue. I can not and will not say that as a gay man, this protest is useless to me because there is an underlying heteronomativity to it. There obviously is, as there is to practically everything, but that does not prevent me from seeing the importance of this protest and what it is trying to achieve. The interpretation of the campaign as saying we are nice liberals who have nothing to do with the violence is one interpretation and a wilfully malignant one. I am going for the protest and my point, and the point of everyone I know who is going, is that we are furious and we will not tolerate these killings being done in our names. We acknowledge our complicity in these crimes and are working on changing that through an act of disavowal, protest and, hopefully, much more. We fail to see how dissing the idea of the protest or its name is anything but debilitating defeatism. There is no clean chit for any one in India. Muslims and Dalits can be equally communal, homophobic and insensitive to attacks on other communities. The structural violence against them does not prevent the flourishing of their own bigotries. If we all just spent all our lives looking inward on our bigotries, we’d be doing nothing else. There is a difference between Hindu and Hindutva just like there is a difference between Islam and jihadists. If one cannot see that, one is wilfully ignorant. One might call oneself Hindu for all sorts of political reasons. I am atheist but I call myself Christian because of what Hindutva forces are doing to Christians all over the country. It is a political choice and not because I believe in Christian casteism which is alive and kicking, as I know from my own family history and from having a Dalit father who converted to Christianity to survive. Attacking the internet-using classes for putting beef pictures is as shallow as if I attack the writer for having access to the internet to peddle this article. We function from our class locations and every protest against fascism from every class location and cultural location and caste location and gender location counts. Has the great author/critic studied the caste and class locations of those who put up the photographs? Are caste/class locations so easily gleanable on facebook and Instagram? Should they be? Perhaps people who believe this ludicrous collapsing of discrete categories and complete insensitivity to the complexity of people’s histories need to look inward as, in any case, inward-looking is all they seem to do in their production of the broadest brushstrokes-based, historically and politically ignorant ‘analysis.’ ‘We’ – and this is a ‘we’ across caste, class and gender locations who deem ourselves secular citizens against lynching, a ‘contingent ‘we,’ a provisional ‘we’, a tremulous ‘we’ – want to look outward at the moment and collectively protest. This does not preclude our looking inward constantly and vigilantly at the same time and examining our privileges and lack of privileges. No one is statically privileged or underprivileged. A Brahmin woman is still also a woman. A Dalit man is still also a man. A Brahmin homosexual is still also a homosexual. A Dalit trans person is both Dalit and trans and may be filthy rich too. But none of that prevents us from coming together at a particular moment and protesting against the killing of Muslims across the country no matter what their caste. No one is statically inward or outward either. This sort of simplistic analysis is giving Dalit politics a bad name. This is akin to the primary contradiction argument offered by braindead Marxists for whom class is the primary (indeed the only) contradiction. Here caste/Brahminism is the primary and only contradiction. We wish we had only one edifice to fight. We have several. And unfortunately, a new edifice, represented by this article, which is that of self-righteous, identitarian fascism. Note: Views expressed are the author's own On 1 July 2017 at 12:03, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > 'Not In My Name' was not, repeat not, organised in the name of "upper > caste Hindus". > > And, the people who eventually gathered, to register their strong > disapproval of the of the ongoing violence by lynch mobs - that would, In > guess, include Una as well, did cut across too many divides. > The photographic, and other, evidences/testimonies available from Delhi > and Mumbai, in particular, indicate significant Muslim presence. > > The claim that "Hinduism" and "Hindutva" are one and the same is a > familiar Hindutva apologist line. (Never mind that the term was > specifically chosen by Savarkar, in a pamphlet - 'Hindutva: Who Is a > Hindu?', penned by him in 1923 and invested it with a twisted, new, > meaning.) > The challenge to its veracity does not, ipso facto, constitute a defence > of Hinduism - either as a whole or its discriminatory and oppressive caste > system, in particular. > > Anyway, 'Not In My Name' did not venture to do even that, by any stretch. > It was a creative expression of strong outrage against the ongoing mob > lynching. > Near-spontaneous. > > And, the Prime Minister had to take note. > No matter, howsoever hypocritical. > > Sukla > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Shiva Shankar <[email protected]> > Date: 29 June 2017 at 10:05 > Subject: The Savarna redemption: Why 'Not In My Name' campaign is a part > of the problem > > > ... By creating an imaginary and false difference between ‘Hinduism’ and > ‘Hindutva’, upper caste liberals have conveniently compartmentalized the > Hindu religion and the violence it sanctions. But in reality, both Hinduism > and Hindutva set out to uphold Brahmanical supremacy and therefore can only > mean the same. ... Instead of directing their noble intentions and rage > outwardly and thereby disassociating themselves from these acts of > violence, upper caste liberals should instead look inward and see if they > can bring about any change. If we intend to speak against the violence that > is inflicted on Muslims and Dalits in this country, we should first learn > to utter the word ‘Brahmanism’. Shying away from the root cause and merely > speaking about the symptoms is a pointless act. > > The Savarna redemption: Why 'Not In My Name' campaign is a part of the > problem: If we intend to speak against the violence that is inflicted on > Muslims and Dalits in this country, we should first learn to utter the word > ‘Brahmanism’. - Rajesh Rajamani Tuesday, June 27, 2017 - 18:11 > > ... Also, the campaign makes one wonder what it seeks to protest against. > Is it against those specific individuals who participated in the acts of > violence? Or is it against the several Hindu groups, which seem emboldened > since the BJP came to power at the centre? Or is it against the ruling BJP > government itself? Or is it against Brahmanism and the Hindu religion, > which allow for violence to preserve social inequality? > > Because it is certainly surprising to see how several of those who have > joined this campaign claim, “I am a Hindu. But I am against the lynching of > Muslims and Dalits. #NotInMyName” or “Save Hinduism from Hindutva! > #NotInMyName”. By creating an imaginary and false difference between > ‘Hinduism’ and ‘Hindutva’, upper caste liberals have conveniently > compartmentalized the Hindu religion and the violence it sanctions. But in > reality, both Hinduism and Hindutva set out to uphold Brahmanical supremacy > and therefore can only mean the same. > > However, this convenient compartmentalization has allowed upper caste > liberals to preserve and benefit from the Brahmanical structure, but at the > same time speak against the violence it perpetuates. Such campaigns can be > win-win situations for these liberals but they serve no real use for those > oppressed by the structure. > > Whose name is it anyway? > > This is not the first time such empty campaigns have gained currency in > liberal spaces. Earlier, when Mohammad Akhlaq was lynched based on a rumor > that his family had consumed beef, liberals protested against it by > instagramming images of beef dishes and sharing chilly beef recipes. Fully > aware of their privileged caste location and knowing that these ‘acts of > protests’ would not put them in any danger, they repeatedly indulged in it. > > However, there was absolutely no attempt made to introspect or understand > how these food-policing rules and the subsequent acts of violence stem from > the Brahmanical Hindu religion. This is because any such introspection > would involve questioning one’s own location within the Brahmanical Hindu > fold and how it provides them with privileges and protection. Dismantling > the Brahmanical Hindu structure would mean that upper caste liberals might > have to lose their privileges and be reduced to a disadvantaged position > compared to now. ... > > > > > -- > Peace Is Doable > > > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
