Caste aesthetics
.
BY PERUMAL MURUGAN
STATE OF THE NATION: Academics, artistes and policy-makers cast an eye on the way forward
Where one is compelled to articulate hiscaste pride — from those belonging to the land ruled by a particular caste to the leaders that have emerged from it
democracy . Factors like right to vote for all castes, right to contest for all castes, reservation based on social justice , education and media have helped break down the hierarchies. When they began to collapse, it did create pain and injury. Yet the process continued with no major friction.
After the 1990s, globalisation and the rise of the marginalised sped up the process of collapse. But it was least expected that the 21st century would hamper this process. The dominant communities would of course not part with the power that came along with caste for centuries. Whenever possible, they sought to assert their caste dominance and hierarchy. The marginalised continued to identify their rights by way of democracy and sought to establish their role in the bureaucracy. The clash between the two entities constitutes the politics till date. The clash has today metamorphosed into something else.
Democracy disallowed the dominant castes from perpetuating their caste hegemony and ruling power. Under the circumstances, caste hierarchy in civil society tries to usurp power by amplifying the philosophy behind caste hegemony. The philosophy essentially expects a community to remain low in the hierarchy. It does not care about those who are in the higher rungs of the hierarchy. It accepts as normal a community in the higher rung just as it is normal to have a community in the lower rung. A mind that is willing to exercise power over a marginalised community would also be willing to submit to the power of a dominant community. A slave will essentially learn how to treat a slave from his master. When he finally gets power, he will ‘unleash his lessons’ on those beneath them. The caste hegemonic forces follow the same pattern. They don’t just adopt the language and rituals of the upper castes, but also learn from the upper castes to dominate those in the lower strata.
This philosophy of caste hegemony resides in every casteist mind. It accepts the division of human beings on the basis of castes and is approving of dominance. It repels the idea of treating anyone beneath it on par with itself. It makes sure that any such attempt is diluted in the process. It has realised that its authority lies in inequality. Whenever the authority is challenged, the hegemonic philosophy expressly divides the people and asserts its power.
It is the duty of democratic politics to break the philosophy of caste power and work towards social equality. But in recent history the political forces that were at least slowly accelerating this process have been pushed back and they have lost their power. This has also turned out to be an era where it has been established that it is possible to gain power by blindly accepting caste hegemonies. We have been experiencing the domination of forces that have successfully been able to give shape to such hegemonic philosophies. We have been bound in communal chains, imposed by caste hegemonies.
The situation has become conducive for caste-based organisations that have always only existed on paper. The castes started to believe that it would now be possible to retrieve the power that they lost to democracy. Hence, caste organisations converted into political parties. From a period that required the marginalised to have their political parties to save themselves from caste discrimination, the time has come when caste organisations are encouraged to form political parties to perpetuate their power structures. The situation is also favourable for the parties born out of castes and already in existence.
A particular caste thrives in a narrowed space. It inherits thefeudalism of that space. It is only natural for a caste-based political party to dominate a particular geographical space. The forces that seek to use this caste-based discrimination to strengthen their authority attempt to make the space rigid and lend importance to the caste-based parties. The ‘vote bank’ remains at once the strength and weakness of a democracy. Caste-based parties have been able to win elections in certain areas by exploiting the weakness of the vote bank. The weakness of vote-bank politics has made it necessary for the mainstream parties that worked towards equality to join hands with casteist forces and give them status.
That caste hegemony has been able to exert more influence in the form of political parties and vote bank than fundamental issues like economy and unemployment is, to me, more significant. Although it outwardly appears that we have transformed a lot, our society continues to be driven by caste. The times when the philosophy of caste was considered brutal has changed. Today, the philosophy of caste stands before us having assumed an aesthetic form. Today, one is forced to articulate his caste pride. Everything is seen as caste pride — from the land ruled by a particular caste to the leaders that have emerged from a particular caste. Yes, today caste has been endowed with aestheticism. Caste discrimination has become a generic term now — we cannot pinpoint a particular caste and accuse it of discrimantion. It is difficult to criticise a particular caste. Because, the philosophy of caste has an aesthetic stance today.
The aesthetic perspective of caste is working harder and faster. It deems divisions as natural, which people acknowledge. It says you are superior and you have someone beneath you. People welcome it with glee. It urges them to show their pride in their clothes — people adorn themselves in clothes that are symbols. It gives away swords to demonstrate its historic pride — people flaunt it to show their valour. People travel in buses and lorries, blaring songs that celebrate caste pride. Caste gives an identity to a person with no effort of his. Today, that identity is seen with pride.
People organised by caste identify their leaders. The leaders express the aspects that add pride to their caste. They oppose any challenge to their caste. They protect entrepreneurs in the name of caste. Those entrepreneurs give them funds. People feel well protected by this aesthetic image of caste.
This is the truth of the day. When caste takes an upper hand, freedom of expression and democracy take a backseat. Caste says this: “Are your writing about me? I will supply the information. We only have morally upright persons in our caste.” Caste has no space for dialogue. It shows only one way. It shuns criticism. It ignores opposition. It combats it with weapons. It has trained people to not question those in power. The truth that caste pronounces loudly is that neither freedom of expression nor democracy has space in our scheme of things.
I can cite an example of an argument shrouded in apparent concern and sympathy, put forth by the philosophy of caste. When a young man was killed in a caste-motivated murder, caste started off like this: “He is a young man, he deserved to live longer. It is sad that he had to pass away so early.” It might appear that the statements drip with sympathy and concern. Caste further says: “Love is supreme. It is a good thing.” We might be surprised that it supports the concept of love. But in the end it concludes: “If only he had loved within his own caste, he might not have died this way.” For those hearts soaked in caste, it is an acceptable statement. Yes, let women and men fall in love. But why should they love outside their caste and die for it? They could as well love within their caste and live happily.
Such ideas go down well with the people. I spent the last few years in fear when caste became accepted as a matter of pride. Today, when it is highly possible that caste pride should become more accentuated, it pushes me into deeper realms of fear.
█ I spent the last few years in fear when caste became accepted as a matter of pride. Today, when it is highly possible that caste pride should become more accentuated, it pushes me into deeper realms of fear
► Translated from Tamil by Kavitha Muralidharan (Perumal Murugan is a poet and writer)
STATE OF THE NATION: Academics, artistes and policy-makers cast an eye on the way forward
Where one is compelled to articulate his
Ours is a caste-based society. Caste hierarchies create dominance and inequalities. In the second half of the colonial period, the hierarchies that solely existed on the fundamentals of caste for centuries, began to break down. After Independence, this society slowly turned malleable — a change made possible by the contribution of several leaders and the flourishing
After the 1990s, globalisation and the rise of the marginalised sped up the process of collapse. But it was least expected that the 21st century would hamper this process. The dominant communities would of course not part with the power that came along with caste for centuries. Whenever possible, they sought to assert their caste dominance and hierarchy. The marginalised continued to identify their rights by way of democracy and sought to establish their role in the bureaucracy. The clash between the two entities constitutes the politics till date. The clash has today metamorphosed into something else.
Democracy disallowed the dominant castes from perpetuating their caste hegemony and ruling power. Under the circumstances, caste hierarchy in civil society tries to usurp power by amplifying the philosophy behind caste hegemony. The philosophy essentially expects a community to remain low in the hierarchy. It does not care about those who are in the higher rungs of the hierarchy. It accepts as normal a community in the higher rung just as it is normal to have a community in the lower rung. A mind that is willing to exercise power over a marginalised community would also be willing to submit to the power of a dominant community. A slave will essentially learn how to treat a slave from his master. When he finally gets power, he will ‘unleash his lessons’ on those beneath them. The caste hegemonic forces follow the same pattern. They don’t just adopt the language and rituals of the upper castes, but also learn from the upper castes to dominate those in the lower strata.
This philosophy of caste hegemony resides in every casteist mind. It accepts the division of human beings on the basis of castes and is approving of dominance. It repels the idea of treating anyone beneath it on par with itself. It makes sure that any such attempt is diluted in the process. It has realised that its authority lies in inequality. Whenever the authority is challenged, the hegemonic philosophy expressly divides the people and asserts its power.
It is the duty of democratic politics to break the philosophy of caste power and work towards social equality. But in recent history the political forces that were at least slowly accelerating this process have been pushed back and they have lost their power. This has also turned out to be an era where it has been established that it is possible to gain power by blindly accepting caste hegemonies. We have been experiencing the domination of forces that have successfully been able to give shape to such hegemonic philosophies. We have been bound in communal chains, imposed by caste hegemonies.
The situation has become conducive for caste-based organisations that have always only existed on paper. The castes started to believe that it would now be possible to retrieve the power that they lost to democracy. Hence, caste organisations converted into political parties. From a period that required the marginalised to have their political parties to save themselves from caste discrimination, the time has come when caste organisations are encouraged to form political parties to perpetuate their power structures. The situation is also favourable for the parties born out of castes and already in existence.
A particular caste thrives in a narrowed space. It inherits the
That caste hegemony has been able to exert more influence in the form of political parties and vote bank than fundamental issues like economy and unemployment is, to me, more significant. Although it outwardly appears that we have transformed a lot, our society continues to be driven by caste. The times when the philosophy of caste was considered brutal has changed. Today, the philosophy of caste stands before us having assumed an aesthetic form. Today, one is forced to articulate his caste pride. Everything is seen as caste pride — from the land ruled by a particular caste to the leaders that have emerged from a particular caste. Yes, today caste has been endowed with aestheticism. Caste discrimination has become a generic term now — we cannot pinpoint a particular caste and accuse it of discrimantion. It is difficult to criticise a particular caste. Because, the philosophy of caste has an aesthetic stance today.
The aesthetic perspective of caste is working harder and faster. It deems divisions as natural, which people acknowledge. It says you are superior and you have someone beneath you. People welcome it with glee. It urges them to show their pride in their clothes — people adorn themselves in clothes that are symbols. It gives away swords to demonstrate its historic pride — people flaunt it to show their valour. People travel in buses and lorries, blaring songs that celebrate caste pride. Caste gives an identity to a person with no effort of his. Today, that identity is seen with pride.
People organised by caste identify their leaders. The leaders express the aspects that add pride to their caste. They oppose any challenge to their caste. They protect entrepreneurs in the name of caste. Those entrepreneurs give them funds. People feel well protected by this aesthetic image of caste.
This is the truth of the day. When caste takes an upper hand, freedom of expression and democracy take a backseat. Caste says this: “Are your writing about me? I will supply the information. We only have morally upright persons in our caste.” Caste has no space for dialogue. It shows only one way. It shuns criticism. It ignores opposition. It combats it with weapons. It has trained people to not question those in power. The truth that caste pronounces loudly is that neither freedom of expression nor democracy has space in our scheme of things.
I can cite an example of an argument shrouded in apparent concern and sympathy, put forth by the philosophy of caste. When a young man was killed in a caste-motivated murder, caste started off like this: “He is a young man, he deserved to live longer. It is sad that he had to pass away so early.” It might appear that the statements drip with sympathy and concern. Caste further says: “Love is supreme. It is a good thing.” We might be surprised that it supports the concept of love. But in the end it concludes: “If only he had loved within his own caste, he might not have died this way.” For those hearts soaked in caste, it is an acceptable statement. Yes, let women and men fall in love. But why should they love outside their caste and die for it? They could as well love within their caste and live happily.
Such ideas go down well with the people. I spent the last few years in fear when caste became accepted as a matter of pride. Today, when it is highly possible that caste pride should become more accentuated, it pushes me into deeper realms of fear.
█ I spent the last few years in fear when caste became accepted as a matter of pride. Today, when it is highly possible that caste pride should become more accentuated, it pushes me into deeper realms of fear
► Translated from Tamil by Kavitha Muralidharan (Perumal Murugan is a poet and writer)
