Thursday, July 2, 2020

கொளத்தூர் மணி தலைமையில் அன்னூரில் ஆயிரம்குடங்களுடன் தாழ்த்தப்பட்டோர் தண்ணீர் பிடிக்கும் போராட்டம் 2010




கோவை மாவட்டம் அன்னூர் ஒன்றியத்தில் உள்ள நல்லிசெட்டிபாளையம்,அச்சம்பாளையம், அல்லிக்காரன்பாளையம், செங்கப்பள்ளி,குருக்கிளையாம்பாளையம் ஆகிய கிராமங்களிலும் அவற்றைச் சுற்றியுள்ள கிராமங்களிலும் பல நூற்றாண்டுகளாக வெவ்வேறு வடிவங்களில் தீண்டாமை வன்கொடுமைகள் தொடர்ந்து நிலவிவருகின்றன.

அண்மைக்காலங்களில் பொதுக்குழாயில் தாழ்த்தப்பட்ட மக்கள் குடிநீர் பிடிக்கத்தடை, செல்போன் பேசத் தடை, இரட்டைக்குவளைமுறை, சலூன்களில் தாழ்த்தப்பட்டோருக்கு முடிவெட்டத்தடை, அண்ணா மறுமலர்ச்சித் திட்டத்தில் கட்டப்பட்ட பொதுச்சுடுகாட்டில் தாழ்த்தப்பட்டோரைப் புதைக்கத்தடை,மோட்டார்பைக் ஓட்டத்தடை என பல்வேறு தீண்டாமை வன்கொடுமைகள் நடைமுறையில் இருந்து வருகின்றன. பெரியார் திராவிடர் கழகமும் தொடர்ந்து இவற்றுக்கு எதிராகப் போராடிவருகிறது.

கடந்த 12.06.11 அன்று மாலை 6.00 மணியளவில் அன்னூர் அருகேயுள்ள குருக்கிளையாம்பாளையம் என்ற கிராமத்தில் பொதுக்குழாயில் குடிநீர் பிடிக்கச்சென்ற வசந்தகுமார் என்ற மாணவனை ஆதிக்கஜாதியைச் சேர்ந்த மூன்று பெண்களும் தாமோதரன் என்பவரும்“சக்கிலியர்கள் இங்கு தண்ணீர் பிடிக்க வரக்கூடாது” என மிரட்டி கடுமையாகத் தாக்கியுள்ளனர். செய்தியைக் கேள்விப்பட்ட உடனேயே மாலை 7.00 மணியளவில் பெரியார் திராவிடர் கழகத்தைச் சேர்ந்த அன்னூர் ஈஸ்வரன், ஜோதிராம் உட்பட நூற்றுக்கணக்கான தோழர்களும் பொதுமக்களும் வன்கொடுமை நடந்த குருக்கிளையாம்பாளையத்தில் சாலை மறியலில் ஈடுபட்டனர். இதனால் அன்னூர் - மேட்டுப்பாளையம் சாலையில் போக்குவரத்து நிறுத்தப்பட்டது.

இந்நிலையில் பெரியார் திராவிடர் கழகத்தின் மாவட்டப்பொறுப்பாளர்கள் வெள்ளமடை நாகராசு,மேட்டுப்பாளையம் சந்திரசேகர், தமிழ்நாடு மாணவர் கழக மாநில அமைப்பாளர் வழக்கறிஞர் பன்னீர்செல்வம் மற்றும் தோழமை இயக்கங்களைச் சேர்ந்த தோழர்கள் அன்னூர் காவல்நிலையத்தில் உரிய அதிகாரிகளைச் சந்தித்து தீண்டாமை வன்கொடுமைத் தடுப்புச்சட்டத்தின்படி வழக்குப்பதிவு செய்ய வலியுறுத்தினர். அதன்பிறகு இரவு 1.00 மணிக்கு மேல்தான் எஃப்.ஐ.ஆ ரே போடப்பட்டது.

13.06.11 காலை கோவை மாவட்ட ஆட்சியரிடம் பெரியார் திராவிடர் கழகம் சார்பில் குறுக்கிளை யாம்பாளையம் மற்றும் சுற்றியுள்ள கிராமங்களில் நிலவும் தீண்டாமைக் கொடுமைகள் குறித்து புகார் விண்ணப்பமும் கொடுக்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.


தலித் மாணவனைத் தாக்கிய ஆதிக்கஜாதியினர் இன்று
வரை கைது செய்யப்படவில்லை. தண்ணீர் தடையும் நீக்கப்படவில்லை. இதுபற்றி நாளிதழ்களில் வெளியான செய்திகளை அறிந்து அதனடிப்படையில் தேசிய மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணையம் இச்சிக்கலைக் கையில் எடுத்திருக்கிறது. தமிழக அரசுக்கு இதுகுறித்து விளக்கம் கேட்டு நோட்டீஸ் அனுப்பியுள்ளது.

தலித் சிறுவன் அவமானப்படுத்தப்பட்டு, தாக்கப்பட்ட சம்பவம் தொடர்பாக எடுத்த நடவடிக்கைகள் என்னென்ன? இச்சம்பவம் குறித்து குற்ற வழக்கு பதிவுசெய்யப்பட்டுள்ளதா? பாதிக்கப்பட்ட சிறுவனுக்கு நிவாரணம் வழங்கப்பட்டதா? இதுபோன்ற தீண்டாமை வன்கொடுமைகளுக்கு எதிராக இதுவரை எடுக்கப்பட்ட நடவடிக்கைகள் என்ன?

என்பவை உள்ளிட்ட பல கேள்விகளை தேசிய மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணையம் வினவியுள்ளது.

கடந்த 21.05.11 அன்று அன்னூரில் பெரியார் திராவிடர் கழகப் பொதுச்செயலாளர் கோவை கு.இராமக்கிருட்டிணன் தலைமையில் அன்னூர் ஒன்றியத்தில் நிலவும் தீண்டாமைக் கொடுமைகளைக் கண்டித்து ஒரு கண்டன ஆர்ப்பாட்டடம் நடைபெற்றது. அந்த ஆர்ப்பாட்டத்தில் அன்னூர் ஒன்றியம் முழுவதிலும் உள்ள கிராமங்களில் என்னென்ன வகையான வன்கொடுமைகள் நடைமுறையில் உள்ளன என்பவை குறித்து விளக்கமான புள்ளிவிபரங்களுடன் கூடிய துண்டறிக்கையையும் தோழர்கள் விநியோகித் தனர். அதில் குருக்கிளையாம்பாளையத்தில் தாழ்த்தப்பட்ட மக்கள் குடிநீர் பிடிக்க தடை உள்ளது என்ற செய்தியையும் குறிப்பிட்டுள்ளனர்.இப்படிப்பட்ட வன்கொடுமைகளைக் கண்டுபிடித்துக் களைய வேண்டியது காவல்துறையின் கடமையாகும். ஆனால் பெரியார் திராவிடர் கழகம் கண்டறிந்து பட்டியல் போட்டு அதைத் துண்டறிக்கையாக விநியோகித்து ஆர்ப்பாட்டமே நடத்தியிருந்தும் காவல்துறை உரிய நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கவில்லை. 21.05.11 ஆர்ப்பாட்டத்திற்குப் பிறகு உரிய நடவடிக்கை எடுத்திருந்தால் குருக்கிளையாம்பாளையத்தில் தலித் சிறுவன் தாக்கப்பட்ட சம்பவம் நடந்தே இருக்காது.

இச்சூழலில் பெரியார் திராவிடர் கழகம் இதை முக்கியப் பிரச்சனையாக எடுத்துக்கொண்டுள்ளது. வரும் 27.06.11 திங்களன்று காலை 10 மணியளவில் குருக்கிளையாம்பாளையத்தில் பெரியார் திராவிடர் கழகத் தலைவர் கொளத்தூர் மணி தலைமையில் 1000 குடங்களுடன் தாழ்த்தப்பட்டோர் தண்ணீர் பிடிக்கும் போராட்டம் நடைபெற உள்ளது. பொதுச்செயலாளர்கள் கோவை கு.இராமக்கிருட்டிணன், விடுதலை இராசேந்திரன், வழக்கறிஞர் ப.பா.மோகன், நாடுகடந்த தமிழீழ அரசு தோழமை மய்யத்தின் பேராசிரியர் சரசுவதி ஆகியோர் உட்பட பல்வேறு தோழமை இயக்கங்களும் இந்த மனிதஉரிமைப் போராட்டத்தில் பங்கேற்க உள்ளன. அனைத்து முற்போக்குஇயக்கங்களும்,தோழர்களும், மனித உரிமை ஆர்வலர்களும் அவசியம் இப்போராட்டத்தில் பங்கேற்குமாறு அழைக்கிறோம்.

Monday, January 21, 2019

The oppressive caste becomes validated in constitution for the first time. 10% reservation


With so much pain I had to write this because there is hardly any sincere effort to discuss caste system. We hardly have media to express our views, neither do we  own the online space. Its sad and pathetic. with this intro read the text. This has been point that reservation has been hardly debated in India on its true sense.


“Old wine in new bottle” the present reservation is nothing but a reservation policy for exclusively  upper caste Hindus. Protest demanding reservation and stalling the government’s day to day life has been a frequent affair in different states. As a response to the violent protest the state government provided reservation without due process and was struck down. The present policy though it is an infringement on the current reservation policy provided to SC/ST/OBCs, which was based on facts and had a vision for an equal society, it has formalized caste as a permanent category for all.
In the past the Supreme Court struck down policies that did not meet then existing reservation guidelines. According to the constitution article 15 (4) grants state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and economically backwardness, SC/STs. Article 15 (5) argues states to make provision of reservation into education institutions including private schools and colleges. In this background the caste Hindus were never eligible to be qualified as social backwardness. The present central government has introduced 124th amendment to the constitution of India which allows special provision for the advancement of any economically weaker sections other than the classes mentioned (SC/ST/OBC) in clause 4 and 5. The reservation would be in addition to the existing reservations and subject to a maximum of ten percent of the total seats in each category. With the present bill the government could certainly take credit for addressing the long pending demand from caste Hindus such as Maratas, Patels Jats etc. If demonetisation was introduced as a shock to all which was 2 months prior to the Uttar Pradesh elections, the quota for ‘economically weaker section’ is introduced by 3 months before Parliament election. Only time would show whether like demonetisation which shook the opposite parties in UP, will 10% quota win BJP back to power in 2019.
Many in the media, political parties and public opinions have welcomed reservation for caste Hindus. The same people on the contrary opposed Mandal commission reservation based on caste. Now instead of arguing the reservation for caste Hindus, its argued as ‘economic backwardness’ or case neutral. The present introduced reservation policy has many unanswered questions most importantly I argue it has diluted the essence of reservation policy itself.
How are the caste Hindus being only weaker sections?  Does economic weaker section for dominant castes become a criteria  for jobs. Most important the present policy has removed 10 % meritorious/open seats from 51% that would have been used by all castes. India would be the first country to provide reservation for caste Hindus, who are socially and economically forward a complete opposite to the makers of constitution who provided reservation for social backwardness and to protect against harassment and discrimination. It was sad to witness the dalit politicians and parties in the parliament who argue representing and protecting Dalits have completely failed by supporting a reservation which goes against the policy itself.  The only opposition was seen on Facebook and Twitter.
Discussion in the parliament and newspapers equated General category to particular caste category. Such argument is an outcome of misreading of the existing reservation policy. For long the reservation debate has moved away from the vision of the policy to protect SC/ST/OBC from harassment and discrimination, to arguing as an upliftment of SC/ST/OBCs. Those supporters of reservation policy argued it’s a policy to equalise the past wrong. The makers of the constitution imagined a nation without caste discrimination without banning caste system and to maintain a competition that is above caste, religion etc. In other words the constitution makers believed the rule of law would automatically change the society or societal practice of inequality. Earlier the BJP government at the center tried to review the constitution and then president of India K.R.Narayanan in  his republic day speech asked “ Lets us examine whether the constitution has failed us or we have failed the constitution” and stopped the BJP governments move to review.
The present reservation policies provided are in blocks, SC/ST/OBC category.  General or open is not a particular caste category rather an open list that anyone can be part of General. For an example, in a 100 seats the 50th person scored 64% marks and if that is the cut-off for SC/ST/OBC, those candidates from among them who score less than 64% would not qualify as per this cutoff. While those who score more than 64% will already have got admission in the general category. Therefore, General was never reserved for one particular group in philosophy. It was a vision of the constitution makers to bring all caste together in due course to the General list and remove reservation completely.
Why such reservation policy at the first place?
In the past and present Dalits who are qualified are not being recruited to the job even after they qualify. They are still secluded and ghettoised into colonies and the statistics of violence on SC/ST are still rampant. Firstly the makers of the constitution made a provision to allow special provision to SC/ST that allows them to contest elections. The makers believed an equal society without basing caste discrimination henceforth they did not make SC/ST reserved seats as the only block for SCs. They allowed SC/STs to contest in General Seats but in practice if not for the reserved seats SC/STs would not be present in the Parliament and state assemblies. In other words, the General seats are unofficially reserved for caste Hindus.  SC/STs are unwelcome to contest in these seats, sadly even dalit political parties are mostly given these reserved seats to contest. Until now the caste Hindus do not appreciate Dalits to contest elections on general seats. Lets not forget the caste Hindu society doesn’t accept Dalits to lead or make policies for them. Take the case of Panchayat presidents in Tamil Nadu, Murugesan a panchayat president in Melavalavu contested and won an election with majority but was beheaded only as he sat on panchayat presidents seat. Even if a SC/ST wins s/he wins the elections still are not able to function as president. Its this very reason that the SC/ST reservation in political arena would continue until the Caste Hindus shed their caste arrogance and hegemony. If its asked whether it’s the right solution, certainly it’s debateable.
Historically Dalits were not allowed to study. Until 1993 manual scavenging was an official job recruited by the governments in state and centre. Dalits were encouraged by the local authorities to join the job. Only recently after Ambedkar centenary there started a wide spread demand for Dalits to get education. Therefore until now different departments, jobs in the state and central government is fully occupied by caste Hindus. When Dalits apply for jobs they are discriminated against applying and even after applying they don’t get calls to the qualification they have. For example the employment office used to send advertisement of sweepers jobs to scavenging castes irrespective of their qualification. I even after completing MA at the Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages got a letter of advertisement to apply for sweeper jobs. A caste Hindu is given a job in the garden while an untouchable even after qualification is forced to join sweeper job. To fight the Caste Hindu’s mentality from stopping Dalits in entering academics the reservation was introduced.


Therefore, General category is not another caste category as many argue. It’s not only a place for all  casteless, but it is also a list for the recruiters to accept all castes are equal and only marks matters. In practice the implementation was against the spirit of the constitution where openly the recruiters or after admission teachers have asked in the past “you already have respective SC/ST/OBC exclusive reservation why do you have to come under General”. The first activity of any Ambedkarite movement in universities has been to monitor whether the qualified SC/STs are in general list or pushed under category.
The populistic belief including Dalits argue its an elevation like the picture below. Certainly this is a misinformed idea on reservation.




The main purpose of providing reservation was to make sure that SC/ST to be given equal treatment because it was not the stool but the fence was demarcated based on once caste. Most debate surrounds the stool than the fence itself. Its this very understanding leads many to justify the present reservation policy provided on ‘economic backwardness’. Until 2000 the reservation policy was not even implemented in many central universities and they claimed they did not find suitable students. The rising suicides of SC ST students in central universities are result of such discrimination. To understand the blatant reason for reservation is to look at the buses seating arrangement.
The seat arrangements on a city bus in Chennai, like many other cities, reminds me the importance and the history and the debate behind the reservation policy. Unlike other cities in Chennai the seats are divided by two rows, one for women and other one not informed or branded. The unbranded seats according to the law anyone can sit, irrespective of gender. Since women have an exclusive sitting space, if men wants to sit he can only sit on the unbranded seats, which dosent mean this is reserved for men alone though where even women can also sit.
In all these years I have seen only one instances where a man argued to a woman sitting on a seat not reserved for anyone that these unreserved seats are not for women but for men. Have also seen women standing even though the unreserved seats fall empty. In practice mostly, these unwritten seats are unofficially reserved for men. Now why do women get their seats reserved while men don’t get reserved seats in these buses? It is not because women don’t have the energy to stand. This is one of the prominent explanations where one argues women are physically not fit, this understanding still continues in the popular culture. Its such understanding which leads women to be less paid than men. Many still believe this, at least hoping the readers of this article will know that this argument is built not on facts or any scientific findings but rather a very masculine understanding of gender, in India rooted in religion. The division of seating in the bus was brought to address women from being harassed by men in crowded buses. It is this very simple and similar reason SC/STs were provided reservation not because they are non-merit or unfit but because they have been stopped even after qualification. In other words the interviewer drew the finishing line based once caste of the student. If a dalit applied for a post there was no finishing line while for others there was. It is this very reason in most selection committees a SC/ST is included in the committee only to monitor whether the finishing line is drawn based on merit and not based on once caste.
It deeply worries to see the upper caste Hindus are exclusively provided reservation for their status. While anti-caste movement have been discussing about the problem of upper caste Hindus in the villages and problematising the identity, the government rationalises the identity and justifies the upper castes Hindus as a category to be focused on. The present move is completely opposed to the existing reservation policy provided for social and economic backwardness. Usually any policies are debated in public and statistics are formulated on to argue the rational behind it. In the present policy only Patels breaking public property and ransacking the state, Jats stopping the Delhi highway and molesting women and the government’s bad policies that left many jobs less. These are the only rational and to garner support from the upper caste Hindus to win elections, the present BJP government had arm twisted blackmailing the elections.
We have entered into a different phase of reservation.  

Subscribe to the block, write your comments and send feedback. Appreciate your cooperation.



Monday, May 22, 2017

Baahubali Review De-cast(e)ing Rajamouli



Introduction:


Cinema either shown in VCR or projector or in theatres or in multiplex or recently in websites have one agenda in common to reach the maximum viewership. Most of the time movies tend to reach larger audience keep the story that echo the popular feel of the masses. I believe movies dont start influencing the society but rather it authenticates and popularises the commonness. Most of the time the victims of such stories are the oppressed. Its important as a friend of mine, Associate Prof. at the English and Foreign Languages University, used to argue that movies are an important form of oppression that reinforces prejudices. Dalits should pay more attention to critically examine these movies rather seeing it as a public spectacle. Most of the critiques at least those are populist narration dont seem to have critiqued on these oppressive ideologies. This article closely interrogates the prevalent and reinforced oppressive ideologies. For the present discussion I am casting SS Rajamouli movies to examine.


A short review on SS Rajamouli’s work..
Like many directors he too has a skill to make a story unique and makes the audience to stare the screen till it comes to an end. All of his movies have a very good graphics at least comparing to the earliest Indian movies. I suppose the best was ‘eega’(2012) [Tamil].. Then his “Chiruthai”(2011)[Tamil] and “Magadeera”(2009) [Telugu]. All have different stories that are knitted in his unique way. Baahubali: conclusion the story was just like repetition of the first but still Rajamouli gives audience a different experience. As a matter of fact the movie moves forward not with story but action, dialogue, populistic caste arrogance of kshatriya along with graphics.  


Caste:
In “Eega” the story mostly surrounds between three characters, the villain, hero and the heroine. We can associate  the characters to class where the villain is from a upper class and the hero from a proletarian. Apart from this there is no explicit caste symbols in this movie. The other movie “Chiruthai”, caste is explicitly shown in Telugu version. The Rathod, the police officer is introduced with a usual Telugu dialogue.
“Chaavu ante bayapadanaki alladabaala galliyilo thiruke koondalan koduku annukunnara, Rathod..” 1:18:17 - 1:18:26
[death cannot scare me as I am son born not born in a colony but Rathod"
The story shows like dalits (villagers) are oppressed by the feudal caste hindu, who is supported by government. Rathod comes to save dalits, there is a dialogue in the final scene where the hero asks people to retaliate, the villan says these are slaves and goes on to slur the members.


2:24:21 oor andharni baanga pogaresaavu ra, veelallo nanni erurinche mogaaduni raammannu... vaalu kundalo undethi nethuru kaathuraa baabuji muthiram..” “ni chitukeisthe chaalu moguduni kaatheni naatho kaapurom cheyenikki osthaaru..”


This dialogue is normalized by showing a women stamping the villain. But what else one can say of these casteist and misogynist dialogue.  The underlying story line that only a rajput can come and save dalits, and dalits cannot and should not retaliate, if at all they did they would be met with violence. its funny the hero of these movies come from the same caste the villain is. So why save dalits, rather remove this caste so all can live happily.  Its important that we recall all the atrocities are the result of retaliating and opposing the oppression. Same for women too, that the movie offers only the good caste Hindu masculine men can save them.  This is the same story line we see in most feudal movies.  Such a narration is widespread from Devar Magan (1992), Chinna Goundar (1991), Swades(2004), also Baahubali : The conclusion(2017).  This genre of film I call a ‘Gandhian’. In Baahubali 2, we find the slave (Kattappa) himself taking the leg of Baahubali and keeps on his head. Oppression of dalits and women are voluntary and those are not enforced, a new theory that is being developed by Gandhians in Indian Anthropology and Sociology.  

A dialogue in Baahubali: Conclusion, between Baahubali and Devasena.


Baahubali: Ennodu kaithiyaaga vaa (Come with me as a prisoner)

Devasena: en manathai vendru edutha maaveerar neer, un pani pennaaga varasonaal naan maranamvarai naan aanantham aaga varuven. Aanaal enn maanam elanthu kaithiyaaga oru adi eduthu vaika maaten. (you are the person who stole my heart, ask me to come with you as a working women, I would come till your death bed, but will never keep a step with losing my self respect.)


Like the slave of Kattappa here the women herself voluntarily gets into the cage of patriarchy, and the key to the cage is with Baahubali, the perfect good masculine kshatriya men. As a matter of fact Devasena is literally put into a cage, and most think its normal.


Its a dominant ideology that says dalits wanted to be oppressed because they choose for it.
It reminds the BJP candidate in UP, who sat down on the floor and took a separate glass with him. Did this candidate was given an option to choose? Never, there was only one option for the candidate to accept oppression. This is the status of SCs in political parties and Baahubali depicts similar to it. Kattappa is shown taking his food and baahubali goes to share food, kattappa rejects to share and warns the prince not to eat it is, as its prohibited according to the caste norms. The prince rather changing the caste system he orders them to serve. He follows exactly the caste system that Kattapa was not given an option rather to abide his order. For Baahubali he is eating equally with an untouchable, but for Kattappa its just an order he is following. Most of it we should remember Kattappa is older and the child, Baahubali, still hold the power to order. This is not merit its pure caste that elevates and over rides anything that is democratic.  So everything can only be through orders, even if it is emancipation in caste ridden society. Its utter mockery of the theory of emancipation.


One can also equate in the first part, the ‘’Kshatriya hero’ shown successfully climbing a steep hill, no adivasis climbed before. Only this Kshatriya hero can climb. This is one more crap that we should believe.


Or after the climbing the hill and reaching the kingdom, the camera shows Hundreds of ‘slaves’ are not able to stop the falling statue but one çaste hindu Kshatriya masculine can stop it. That is baabhubali..


Gandhian Film
An undercurrent ideology of a Gandhian film would be to depict the dalits or valorize their depiction and show that a caste hindu (oppressor) can only come and save dalits. In other words Gandhian dont prefer dalits to speak for themselves, rather only the oppressor should speak, this is the undercurrent of Gandhi’s ideology. Also promoting village panchayats, and its setup. Largely the cameras in a Gandhian movie would be fixed in a caste Hindu feudal men house and the village panchayat will have a Khap court.. In the feudal house the cameras will go into every room including the bathroom, but only when a women is taking bath. But the toilet of these movies wont be shown or only when a comedy is made, but the toilet itself would never be a subject. Apart from the house then there is the dalit subjects who would be mocked or shown as helpless then the camera goes back to the feudal house. Interestingly these movies also have another character to valorise the masculine. Not any masculine but the best masculine (hero) who always wins the bad masculine. For one masculine, a women would go after for the other the bad masculine should go after.


An Ambedkarite ideology would be where dalits speak for themselves, in other words all the oppressed speak for themselves. Ambedkar’s ideology is always misinterpreted as though its about who can speak and who cannot? Its rather an ideology to see the world not through caste hindu eye or the oppressed but seeing through holistically or pragmatically. When this fails then dalits are reduced to questioning the experiences of the so and so person for their stand.  Gandhian ideology is rampant everywhere, film industry, academia, industrial, political parties, TV channels. I believe the popular of Gandhi is not for non-violence or for any other aspect that caste Hindus uphold him rather for this very aspect that caste hindus love and shield Gandhi for their own personal goals, which is the oppressor should speak for the oppressed.


As I wrote in an earlier article with very minimal access to theories on media that most of us are force fed this very Gandhian ideology. Its this makes my parents or myself cannot imagine an ideology where dalit on the screen retaliate and fight the injustice. In the present format such movies would be marginalised and will never become popular. In this background Ambedkarite perspective are circulated or viewed only through documentaries. Sadly even if dalits make movies the caste Hindus in power underplay it. Take the recent movie on Poorna Malavath, the first girl to climb mount everest. She was not treated fairly then or even after her movie was made. So this society again needs a caste Hindu to come and talk about dalit revolution like in recent times Pa. Ranjith revolutionised the approach. He used the Gandhian method and Ambedkarite approach and showed in his movie  Kabalai (2016) that ambedkarite approach can also be fed to the mainstream. However not exclusively but with few dialogues and symbols, even this is difficult to make in movies. In other words not through the story line but through dialogues and visuals. This was not accepted by many who did to other movies rather many critics said there are unnecessary comments on Ambedkar and the emancipation of dalits. These dialogue the critic refer did not attack caste Hindus. However I would personally dont mind to see a movie to attack the caste Hindus, they deserve a critical attack to stop their nonsense.   The critique like Prasanth basically asked to avoid such dialogues and he said many did not like the movie due to these dialogues. what a shame! The same critiques dont find problem with Baahubali dialogues and scenes depicting dalits in bad light. We call them as Critic.


I received a mail when I circulated the You Tube review I made in a Google Group


“If you look at the script and the story line that is depicted I would say it belongs to may be an era that could be 1000 years old. But what were the rules and regulations during that time? and that is what this guy depicted. It belonged to the time when caste system was rampant and caste superiority was enforced.”


Can we accept if someone makes a movie on Manusmriti?
I place two arguments against the above narration. Will the film industry or the CBFC or the public agree to see on the screen the stories of women oppression during the early 19th century, or as many argue brahmins historically eat beef, can a scene be there, or even now in Kerala, Bengal, Tamilnadu and in many states beef is ate, can a scene be shown in a screen. Will these caste Hindus agree.?  Few years before Brahmins came to street protesting against a telugu film “Denikaina ready”, a movie depiction women in brahmanism. Secondly if this movie is made to depict before 1000 years, were the costumes same.


It may be argued but remember in those periods the demarcation between kshatriya and brahmin were strong and both are getting incorporated only recently. Let's not forgot the fight between maratas and brahmins both claim Shivaji as one among them. (Funny because India is always against merit, and its these meritorious caste Hindus talk about merit in India. What a merit argument!) Might be worth referring to director shankar’s movie Gentleman (1993), here the brahmin who is the hero becomes violent and a different person once he removes the brahmin thread, similarly in Anniyan (2005) movie. Also in Shankar’s movie mostly we find brahmin vs the rest, however the markers of the rest would be connected to dalits. In the case of SS Rajamouli who is from a kamma caste shows the hero wearing the brahmin thread and also claiming kshatriya status. So a new depiction is shown in this movie such as Kshatriyas and brahmins together Vs dalits. A trend which is also explicit in the ground were the non-dalits grouping against dalits. If the caste Hindus on the ground violently attack dalits, its the brahmins in academic and political arena harass dalits. In other words it can be argued non-daltis Vs dalits is the new trend.


Patriarchy
Patriarchy can be seen as an universal phenomenon but in India it mixes with caste and becomes so vehement and too dangerous. While the caste Hindus can silently accept patriarchy and address the oppression through legal mostly unsuccessfully. Though this might not be the rule for all but certainly there are large number of people who are in a position to address patriarchy only on the surface level, never deep. Most of those articulating against patriarchy dont go deep to the root, henceforth we find patriarchy root growing without any hindrance. The major gap I feel those arguing patriarchy dont seem to understand the caste oppression. The caste Hindus who talk patriarchy find it too comfortable in shielding their casteism behind it. Whatsoever its very important for dalits to engage with debate on patriarchy. Dalit feminism and black feminism are the way forward to address our own societies patriarchy ideology.


I am not here to point SS Rajamouli alone but there are many. The problem comes when one celebrates him and not looking for the values he is being celebrated for. But SS Rajamouli has a bit of misogynist view in most of his movies.  Until now I have hardly found anyone critiquing him for the way he depicts women in all his movies. But I remember when Sairat or in Kabali when directors shaped women characters away from the normal way of depiction all went against the directors in different ways. It is possible SS Rajamouli depicting anusha (Devasena) and thamana (Avanthika) as warriors can be influenced by Sairat. The simple reason none of his earlier movies had slightest respect for women.  


In eega the hero is murdered by villain and the hero comes back and takes revenge. The villain kills the hero only to break the love and to force her to love him. So here the heroine has to be saved, so the hero who is dead comes back as a fly and takes revenge and saves the heroin. The story line may not be a problem as we see it, but if we start asking simple questions like when a fly can kill but a women cannot kill? Certainly Rajamouli thinks only men can save women, that can even be a fly. All his movies have this one line theme. In Chiruthai the hero is introduced when a woman, who is a wife of a police officer is forcefully taken and raped by the villain. Hero shows his heroism in saving her. In Mahadeera again the hero has to save the heroine from villain marrying her. In Baahubali:  the beginning Baabhubali goes to achieve the goal of a Avantika’s dream. They should not be a warriors, and even if she has a goal to do as a warrior the men should take the burden to fulfil the woman's dream. Same the case in Baahubali: Conclusion, all decisions of Anushakas are made fun or underestimated, including Ramya krishnans’(Maharani Shivagaami). In both Mahadeera and Baahubali 2 we find the hero teaches the heroine how to use the bow and arrow. Rajamouli likes teaching skills to women in his movies. Also we find only a slave Kattappa apologies but Baahubali never in the entire two parts, even though there were instances he made mistakes and others took the burnt. On the other hand we find Kattappa keeps apologising, part one, and even in part 2.


Its important to note that in all these movies, women wanted help, and the hero emerges to help. In the first part the hero is shown as though helping but Rajamouli did not know that it was a violence and the hero literally strips her, but in the second part the heorine is not shown in ‘bad clothing’, rather she is introduced with ‘beautiful’ makeup, which automatically avoids the rape.  But in the second part its her mother who says “are we preparing her for marriage or for war” and men dont say it explicitly. When Anushka is molested by a chief she cuts his fingers. For which she is called to the court and during the interrogation Prabhas enters and asks what happened and then he says its wrong because you did not cut his head. So everywhere the men has to overrule and to be shown as smarter than the women. Even when anushka is introduced as a great warrior, still she has to be taught by Prabhas about the arrow technique. These bits and pieces may not in itself form a problem but if we see as through the story line it becomes a serious problem the way women are depicted. Its as though like the caste system is not bad but some parts of it can be tinkered.


Dalit women bodies
The scene Devasena cutting the palm of Sethupathiy for molesting women. This scene narrates the position of dalit and caste hindu women in contemporary Indian society. Sethupathi starts molesting women and Devasena sees it while walking in the row. She cuts the finger of Sethupathi only when he touches Devasena. Even if we take it otherwise this becomes more clear when in the court, Devasena says he was molesting women and also tried to molest me, I cut his hand. Devasena never tried to stop Sethupathi (Kyastriya men) molesting dalit women, also doesnt show agitation but opposes only when he does it on her. Even in the court dalit women bodies are never discussed further. Maybe as dalit women have been arguing the society has not seen them has human beings, leave alone gender.


Baahubali says you did is wrong because you should not cut his fingers but head.
In other words it means the caste Hindu (Sethupathi) can molest dalit women in the row but not the caste Hindu women. Both will not be treated equally. Even when a caste Hindu women protests the caste Hindu patriarchal man says what you did is wrong and I will do the right.


Caste Hindu (Patriarchy) survives because of its inbuilt dual character. At one level the men becomes a controller of women and another he becomes exactly the opposite against whom he was controlling the women. Like a split personalities, he changes the role when he sees a dalit women and a caste Hindu women. It might be the reason dalit women bodies are always seen exact opposite to women bodies like the above, where it naturalised for people to treat it as normal.
“ The later Vedic texts provide more direct evidence: the Satapatha Brahmana, for example, expresses fears regarding the sexuality of women not directly under the control of men, especially husbands.  It refers to the fear that the wife might ‘go to other men’” (Gendering Caste, Uma Chakravarti)
The uniqueness of caste like good and evil, pure and pollution, femininity were also classified as pure and impure bodies. These ideology were rooted in religious texts.  In during the ages these ideologies were given shape to the subjects. These ideologies no more considered as ideologies on abstract rather most often discuss with the subjects. I suppose historically these dual character were underestimated and was shown as a singular entity, only discussing about the ‘priviledged’ pure.  And the other was treated as just a reflection of the actual subject. However I argue these two were never separate but one lived with the others presence, exactly like the idea of ‘inside’ and ‘outside’. Also the inside was always a singular and the outside were always the plural. This is the undercurrent of the caste domination.


Conclusion:
While dalits are still struggling to understand caste in this complex narration left in front of us, the caste Hindus are expanding their theory of domination in different spheres, movies, academia, politics, and now in TV debates. All of them are working hard to maintain the staus co of dalits and adivasis. Their infights (family feuds) became the national spectacle and we dalits are forced to be part of this spectacle. We should not forget that most of the times dalits appear only to be humiliated, otherwise we are always the spectators.  It's time we reject these ‘popular’ spaces and engage with our own. The main reason for rejecting these spaces are exclusively there are no options shown for dalits, rather they depict two option among the caste hindus for us to choose and we unconsciously choose this. This cycle has continued from my parents and going to role further but atleast it wont work with me. Film critique have hardly engaged in caste, because the academicians have not let dalits to think. Maybe this is the reason that AISA in one of its wall painting in JNU has a picture where a boy is shown throwing books over the police barricade. While AISA likewise and other organizations like SFI, etc (expect BAPSA and other dalit students movement) wanted to do a revolution outside the classroom while their caste brethren like chatterjee, Banerjee, Brahmin professors in classroom hold the class as an agrahara. Its irony even when the entire JNU protested against the political interferences in the unviersity, we only find the outside spaces were converted into a classroom and never for once they argued to democratize the inside classroom.


To the caste hindus: we are like the water dropping on the rock, you will find one day that your rock like mentality will be broken into pieces. We will drop till you break.


View My Stats