Taking caste seriously: being anti-brahmin is not enough
Jason Keith Fernandes
jason.k.fernan...@gmail.com
It is something of an article of faith in some circles to
place the ills for much that is happening in Goa at the feet
of the Saraswats. These circles indicate that the Saraswats
have always been a dominant force in Goan society and
especially so after Liberation. They control the mining
industry, through this they control educational institutions;
until very recently almost all of the newspapers in Goa, with
the development of technology they also control the local
audio-visual media.
Further it is pointed out, that from A-Z, all government
departments are headed by Saraswats who ensure that on
retirement, their position is taken over by another Saraswat.
It is through this presence in all key posts and institutions
these activists argue, that the Saraswat is able to control
the fate and politics of Goa, manipulating every situation to
come out the winner. What we should know, these circles
argue, is that there is no such thing as a Congress agenda or
a BJP agenda in this State; there is only a Saraswat agenda,
and they will sleep with whoever promises to deliver it.
The above argument may be true; especially if the
first half of these arguments can be established.
Control over institutions and resources presents
groups with not just economic capital, but social
and cultural resources that allow for dominance in
society.
One can be recognized as dominant not purely through physical
domination and economic might, but by also being recognized
as providing 'high culture'. And this is where I would like
to introduce a spoke into this pleasant idea that we can
blame the Saraswats for every ill in Goa.
Dominance in a society is not possibly entirely through
physical domination, especially by a group that forms a small
percentage of the total population. Such domination is
possible only through the active participation of other
groups in this domination.
The emphasis on Brahmins as the object of attack for creating
a caste-violence free society obfuscates issues rather than
contributes to addressing the matter. Being anti-brahmin is
not enough. On the contrary, it is not what is required in
the first place.
What is required is a hostility to the entire edifice of
Brahmanism that is propped up by brahmanised groups that are
not always Brahmin. For example, the Chardo landlord who
hates the Brahmin is not being anti-caste, but merely
fighting a caste battle for dominance. When he wins this
battle, it does not translate into any form of liberation for
the dalit below him.
A friend succinctly captured the sentiment when he remarked
For the Chardo, being anti-brahmin, is being anti-caste.
In early 20th century Maharashtra, moving toward kshatriya
status was seen as one route toward social mobility and
challenging caste violence. Gail Omvedt, a scholar who has
worked considerably on caste issues, identifies Shahu Maharaj
of Kolhapur as the harbinger of this process.
While being staunchly against untouchability and instituting
policies of positive affirmation (reservation), he did much
to challenge caste violence. However the desire to be
considered a kshatriya meant accepting many brahmanic norms;
it meant accepting sanskritic rituals, and it gave sanction
to all the similar efforts going on throughout the
Marathi-speaking areas whereby 'Maratha' and those of similar
caste were encouraged to consider themselves kshatriyas, use
the Gayatri mantra, use vedokta rituals and so forth.
The result of this move was to weaken the critique
of Brahmanism and shift the focus of the battle
toward the brahmans. It was this strategic mistake
that caused Dr. Ambedkar to clarify to young
Marathas that you are against brahmans but not
brahmanism; we are against brahmanism. Indeed,
from the plethora of Maratha samaj in Goa we can
see that this trend has had some influence in our
State among the 'bahujan' and dalit groups here.
An anti-brahmanical ideology twines the two factors of class
and caste to move away from the casteist strategy of blindly
identifying a single or couple of caste groups as the enemy.
Employing such an ideology we realise that among the Goan
Catholic the all-encompassing terms of bamon and chardo don't
capture sociological reality. They are merely umbrellas that
club dominant bamons and chardos with the dalit bamons and
chardos in the same group.
By erasing the difference between the so-called 'first class'
and 'second-class' bamon and chardo we erase also the clarity
that the interests of these two groups are not the same.
The 'first-class' group has more in common with
each other and with the Saraswats and the Dessais,
than with their 'second-class' compatriots.
However, by placing them in one group, we create
the
