Saturday, August 28, 2010

A Tribal girls discrimination is unnoticed by educated or progressive community

The Incident
Ms. Rajitha, student of 5 year Integrated MA German 2008 batch, who belongs to the ST category, was refused permission to attend her 5th semester classes which commenced this August. She had failed 4th semester exams, and this was stated as a reason for not letting her attend the classes. In her 4th semester there are four courses in which for one she was given ‘F’. In other three courses she has acquired grade ‘D’, ‘E’ and ‘E’. Her GPA was below the minimum qualification for promotion. Her verbal appeal to the Controller of the Examinations to let her sit in the classes, or atleast to let her attend the 3rd semester classes were responded to orally by the Controller that he has issued orders to the German Department stating that she can attend the 5th semester classes. This was under the provision of the Supreme Court ruling regarding failed SC/ST/OBC students which categorically mentions that students belonging to SC/ST/OBC category and has failed in upto three subjects should be given a chance by promoting to the next semester.
On grounds of this assurance from the Controller, when the student approached the Head of the German Department, she denied being issued any such order by the Controller. Ms. Rajitha was made to wander between the two offices, with no respite. On 19th August 2010 (Thursday), Ms.Rajitha was intimated by Warden, that she could no longer avail of the mess facilities from 20th August, as she belonged to no course of the University.

Here I quote from the university ordinance (updated version) Point
“For promotion to second semester, a student must obtain at least a ‘D’ grade in minimum 50% of the courses (e.g. 2out of four courses or 3 out of 6 courses) in the first semester.”
According to the Administration, Ms. Rajitha was given a chance to sit in the next semester i.e. third to fourth semester. Along with her, there was another SC student with the same problem. He also was promoted, it was due to Ms. Rajitha coming out and fighting for justice. And this semester she has been targeted by the same Dean of German, and once again she is fighting against the injustice she has to face. Basically Ms. Rajitha was failed in two subjects in third semester, and she was not allowed to sit in class for a month almost. Every day she was sent to Controller of the Examination, Dean of German studies and the VC’s office. Despite repeated written requests from the VC to the Dean of German studies to accept Ms. Rajitha into her 3rd semester, no positive action was taken. Students protested against the decision of the Dean of German studies for not allowing her to sit in next semester. (the earlier case of hers can be read by clicking the link below.. This case was taken to the Human rights organization too. Yet nothing has happened yet.

Our Demand
In the light of the above mentioned events, the Dalit Adivasi Bahujan Minority Students’ Association (DABMSA) hereby reminds the administration of EFLU that the treatment meted out to Ms.Rajitha is in direct contravention of the Supreme Court ruling regarding the promotion of SC/ST/OBC students. Taking into account not just the flouting of rules, but also of the psychological harassment that the student in question and by extension the students of the whole community faces, we demand stern action to be taken against the Dean of German studies, and thereby mend the loss of faith inflicted upon the students of the oppressed sections of the society. We also remind you that this incident is not one of its kind, but rather a routine by the German Department in dealing with its Dalit students. It is to be mentioned here that the same incidents had happened in the last semester, and there was a public outcry against the Department. Nothing came out of it except admitting those students who were not promoted. In the light of the above incident we would like to remind the University that it does not understand the spirit of the Supreme Court order either. The court ruled in the case of Avinash Singh Bagri &ors. Vs Registrar lit Delhi &Anr. On 12 August,2009, I quote
4. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of providing reservation in higher education like Medical and Engineering streams, no coaching or any other facilities are provided to SC/ST/OBC candidate to enable them to compete with other general category students, as a result of which, more than 90% SC/ST/OBC students are dropped out from these higher courses in first year or second year……. The reservation made by the Central Government/State Governments becomes redundant as no infrastructure is provided to SC/ST/OBC candidates to enable them to acquire bench marks.
The UGC guidelines under Scheme of Remedial Coaching at Undergraduate and Postgraduate Level for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Students and Students Belonging to Minority Communities state:

Remedial Coaching is to be organized at Undergraduate / Postgraduate level with a view to �
a. Improve the academic skills and linguistic proficiency of the students in various subjects.
b. To raise their level of comprehension of basic subjects to provide a stronger foundation for further academic work
c. To strengthen their knowledge, skills and attitudes in such subjects, where quantitative and qualitative techniques and laboratory activities are involved , so that, the necessary guidance and training provided under the programme may enable the student to come up to the level necessary for pursuing higher studies efficiently.
It is surprising that the University conducts Remedial courses for the English but not for foreign languages. The foreign languages undergraduate courses were started by August 2008. Since then, there has been no kind of discussion over the issue.
These rules are neither followed by the University. The saddest part of the story is that in the last semester when the student was admitted after a protest, the administration has not thought of at least reviewing its stance on such academic issues such as introducing remedial class for SC/ST/OBCs. This semester the student has around 99% attendance in each course, except those days she was not allowed to sit in the class. There is a reasonable doubt that the girl was failed in the subject tutored by the Dean of German, who rejected her in last semester and who has again refused her to promote her.
EFL-University is a newly formed university. Earlier it was called as Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL) and had post-graduate course and research. After CIEFL becoming a central University, the administration introduced new courses for undergraduate B.A honors’ in all streams. It is the fact that since its introduction there is a huge outcry from the students at the beginning of every semester that they have been failed in the previous semesters, and the majority of students who face these problems are from the SC/ST/OBC background, in particular from the German department where they have been rejected promotion on the grounds that they haven’t met the minimum academic requirements.
The administration cannot just follow the rules by implementing the Reservation policy in the admission procedure. Here I quote from the Supreme Court order again on the same before quoted..
“…..learned counsel appearing for the petitioners strenuously submitted that there is no use in providing reservation in higher education/higher courses in IIT, Medical and Engineering streams when no extra facilities are provided to SC/ST/OBC candidates to enable them to compete with other general category students. He also contended that no extra coaching or facilities are provided to them in these higher category students.”
In the light of remedial coaching not being provided to the SC/ST/OBC students, the Supreme Court ruling of “a chance” does not apply to the above mentioned case. Therefore, the student deserves not just admission to the classes but also extra coaching from the authorities to all SC/ST/OBC students. By denying her admission, the administration is in fact trying to veil its gross irresponsibility towards the students from the oppressed sections of the society.
We request all the readers to extend their support to fight this case and provide justice for the tribal girl.

If anybody has a speculation of the case please write or find it out.

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Revisiting Sinhala nationalist mindset

[TamilNet, Monday, 16 August 2010, 00:15 GMT]
As long as Sinhala nationalist mindset deny the antiquity and right of Eezham Tamil nation in the island and unable to come out with appropriate political models, no ‘reconciliation’ will be possible and there will be only subjugation. The Tamils don’t deny the Sinhala nation in the island but they are not reciprocated. It has become a must that the national question be decided with secession for any genuine reconciliation at least in the future. The ‘kohomba kankariya’ model of the past envisaged by some academics, who want to be ‘Tamil and Sri Lankan,’ will not work under current norms of Sinhala nationalism. If the current subjugation of Tamils continues there won’t be anyone in the island in future even to read what these academics have written in Tamil, says an academic of Tamil studies in Jaffna.

To understand the nationalist mindset of even seemingly liberal Sinhalese, the academic in Jaffna cited the following paragraph written by a Sinhala journalist who recently visited Jaffna.

“Sri Lankans in the North have undergone language and cultural replacement by acquiring the Tamil language, dress, Hinduism and cultural behaviour because of their contact with South Indian colonialism from 992 AD onwards”, says Sinhala journalist Dushy Ranetunge, ‘Revisiting Jaffna’.

“The place names, the numerous Bo-Trees and ancient Buddhist remains indicate that the people of Jaffna were Buddhists from about 400BC till approximately 992 AD, but despite them acquiring the Tamil language, culture and Hinduism, even today, they continue to perform some of their religious rituals under Bo-trees as they did so many generations ago”.

“In Jaffna there are to the present day over a thousand “Sinhalese” place names, which survive in a Tamil garb, such as Aliyawala(i), kodigama(m), Weligama(m) etc”.

“This indicates that rather than wholesale displacement of the population, there has been a gradual Tamilisation. Recent DNA testing has also indicated that Sri Lankan Tamils are genetically closer to the Sinhalese than they are to South Indian Tamils”, Dushy Ranetunge further said.

Dushy Ranetunge's article was ironically titled "Sinhala nationalist mind set seems incapable of comprehending what Tamils are articulating".

Dushy Ranetunge can write a thesis on how the Indus Civilisation itself is Sinhala-Budhhist, since the worship of the Bo-tree is seen in its seals, commented the Jaffna academic. “If it was the wish of the Eezham Tamils to accept and denounce Buddhism at particular stages of their historical discourse why should there be any qualms about it? Pakistan has so many Budhhist sites. Will Dushy tell them to become Buddhists again?”

Sometimes back a Sinhala engineer-turned academic and his academic wife who came to Jaffna were telling the Jaffna university students about ‘Sinhala-Buddhist’ past of Jaffna, told the academic in Jaffna. Even before the Mu’l’livaaykkal war this engineer-turned academic was advocating for settling Sinhala soldiers and their families in the ‘conquered’ land of the Tamils.

If these journalists and academics genuinely dig into their own past and if they seriously investigate into the etymology of what they think as Sinhala place names of their own core Sinhala land, they could find out what ‘language replacement’ they had gone through to become Sinhalicised and what distant influences and fascinations caused that language replacement, the Jaffna academic said.

“It is repulsive to see these people mutilating and desecrating the names of places which people of the land coined through their long interaction with their environment, such as Aazhiya-va’lai, meaning the coastal enclave. Have they ever thought how did Sinhala get the word Weli for sand?“

“Have they ever tried to comprehend how the names are pronounced and spelt in Tamil and what they really mean? Which language is the place name Ko’la Patuna (Kozhu-pattinam, meaning the port-town at the point) found in the garb of Pali in the chronicles, where the Asokan Budhist emissaries landed in the island, and then who might have been living there at that time?”

Have they ever tried testing their DNA with the people in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, and then compare it with the ‘Aryans’ of their imagination, the academic asked.

“But this bunch of people are not genuinely interested in History. By hook or by crook, by war or by peace, by threat or by sugar-coated approaches, Eezham Tamils have to be subjugated, made to feel inferior in culture to the Sinhalese and be Sinhalicised for the ultimate conquest of Sinhala nationalism of the island. They can rather tell their intentions plainly without victimising history”, the Jaffna academic commented.

“They will have a free go as Tamils are gagged and as there are ‘counterinsurgency’ media at their disposal to engineer deceptive ‘reconciliation’ for the ultimate conquest”.

Some Tamil academics cite folk discourses of past in the island such as the Kohomba Kankariya in which a Tamil folk practice has been adapted as a Sinhalese one, and try to justify the possibility of being a Tamil and a Sri Lankan at the same time. The present avatar of the Sinhala nationalism seems to be having no effect on the edification of their academic fallacies, was the comment of the Jaffna academic.

Monday, August 16, 2010


Recently students went for a protest asking the administration to create a new mess to accommodate students, because the present Mess cannot accommodate all students. But still students were accommodating with the existing messes; as a result many students couldn’t go to class on time. Sometimes they happen to skip some classes. This academic year started on 2nd of August 2010 the protest happened on 13th of August 2010. There was 3 months vacation, where the administration should have speculated such issues, but they didn't as usual blaming each other. In between 2nd and 13th of this month students complained to the higher authority and the concerned administration. One day they even staged a mock protest by eating in the Administrative lounge. There was no much response from the administration. Frustrated students called a GB and decided to go for a protest. While doing protest they have locked the administration, some people were in the administration. The protest started at 7.00 am and they locked the administration building at 12.30 P.M. At 11.00 AM students went to the staffs working in the administration and explained their plight they are living and requested them to support them by getting out of the administration, many left and some held in the building. Those who stayed were in the building while the building was locked. But still many people were let out of the building. Since the pressure was mounting the concerned administrative faculties gave a written assurance that everything would be in normal at the earliest and will make sure the VC would address the students on or before 17th of August and the deadline is tomorrow.
Faculties had called for a meeting today and wanted to protest on two issues, the first is supporting the students demand and second condemning student’s activities. It is obvious that we all should be proud to have such faculties in our university for supporting students cause and explaining us that we should not protest in that manner (locking up). It is certain that even if faculties are calling for discussion we would have not listened. Therefore Faculites protesting is the right way, where students will also understand that ‘un’democratic protest will not be entertained. I too strongly feel the way they protested might be wrong in various angle, still it could be justified in different angle. Hope faculties would give equal importance to both of their support, because supporting students demand should not be an eye wash. and the faculties should ask the VC to address the students or else faculties should join the students protest. But i doubt such a miracle will happen. Such a thing never has happened in our University earlier. Even in cases where some students are sitting for a dharna how many staffs in this university will come and support openly for the students as their doing it now. In this University there are around 5 associations, how many times they have come forward to support our issues, or anyother issues which are not related to them as the issue taken up by them now. There are so many temporary employees who face so many problems from the administration now and then, which association will come forward and fight for them. None, but suddenly one association is coming forward to support, do we have to believe this day light drama. The administration (all staffs) are fully responsible for introducing many courses without any basic infrastructure. And it the students who always bear their blunders. Last year students were living on the swingpool, how many faculties came forward to fight against the administration. None have done so far. Don’t forget that many faculties are part of the so-called administration. Let us forget all issues, when I first came to campus ‘D’ grade was considered as useless, but now how many students have got and what is their future, did anytime any meeting of faculties was called to talk on students future atleast on education level, never. The UGC has said NET as a compulsory subject for getting Asst-professor, how many of our students have cleared NET in Various fields. Many students are sent to this campus with many hopes in the back home. But how much have they learned in this campus in academics very little.
Therefore, the only request is let the faculties once at least protest for the student’s future in a genuine manner. I hope the teachers will not set a wrong example by protesting during the working hours. There are many faculties who are motivating the students in their education and this writing is surely not for them. At the same time there are faculties dividing students, why don’t the fellow faculties protest on this issue.
I strong feel people throwing stones in Kashmiri valley has a history, if they don’t throw the stones, the ‘democractic’ Centre will not respond, after throwing the stones they are calling for dialogue. If maoist haven’t taken arms against the State, the tribals would have not gotten so much public space for discussion. There are so many such instances, and even now teachers are protesting on working hours isn’t it undemocratic. I end this saying"
"It may be your interest to be our masters, but how can it be ours to be your slaves?"- Thucydides

Students should not get diverted by these protests, they should plan ahead over the 17th August given deadline. Till now nothing has happened, therefore students should concentrate on getting their demands right away.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

A Dedication To English And Foreign Language University

As an ‘ordinary’ student I joined EFL University (CIEFL), struggling to cope with a completely different atmosphere. I felt inferior in every way; the way I spoke, my written language and even the way I read. Sometimes even the way I dressed when my friends pointed out made me feel inferior. Now I am able to start a blog, I got my fair share of visibility and I involve myself in activities because of the Cultural Studies Department. This Department evoked my interest and made me question many things especially Caste? Therefore the one issue that has been troubling me often for the past two years is the Mess I eat in. So this article is about the Mess and Cultural Studies students of EFLU.
In CIEFL we had just one mess, after it became EFLU, the administration arranged for two messes where they wanted to divide Mess membership based on Gender. Students protested, asking why the administration should differentiate students on the basis of gender. Therefore the earlier VC supported this argument and held a referendum. The referendum was in favor of the protesting students, for a common mess membership where anyone can join any Mess. When the membership started on first come first serve basis, surprisingly Basheer Hostel Mess had a majority of Men and Bai Chanda hostel had a majority of Women with around 30 Men as its members.
An understanding between both the messes
After a year the Womens hostel office gave immediate mess Membership to women in Bai Chand mess and the Men were given membership in Basheer Hostel mess. Both members have never come on a single forum to address their grievances, though they both had serious problems in their respective Messes during the last two academic years.
The Third Year as the strength increased Basheer Hostel had 850 members and the Baichand hostel had 470 members.
Let us focus on the Structure of both these Messes.

Baichand Hostel:
Has a seating capacity of 120. Mess Members 329 (some around 25-40 Boys and remaining were women)
Mess Committee:
2008, the administration chose 6 Mess secretaries for a period of two months each. These 6 Mess secretaries will run the mess for a total of 12 months. (majority of the mess secretaries were Men during this year, though there were only 40 men as mess members.)
2009, in order to reduce the work load of the Mess secretaries they chose 1 secretary for each month. Among these 12 secretaries (3 were men and the rest were women but not from all categories, Still Men were dominant in the Mess)
Though there is a high women population in the Mess there is a serious under representation in the Mess administration and women from different social categories are never seen.
Basheer Hostel:
Has a seating capacity of 220. Mess members 470, (including 5 girls)
All the Mess secretaries were men.
On the 11th of August most of us in the Campus saw posters calling for a general body meeting to discuss the Mess issues. It was surprising for some of us to see a call for a general body meeting (Indian students) to address the Mess issues, as such a thing has never happened before. Before going any further, we must know why such a meeting was called for.
The Academic year started on the 2nd of August 2010, the admissions to the Mess also started on the same day. The Basheer Mess allowed its members to join the very same day but the Bai Chanda Mess did not allow students to join the Mess (this includes old members too). The people in charge said the old and new students will be allowed to become members once the office provides enough staff till then they can be a Guest. After a few days some of students raised their voice against this saying such a bias should not exist, students should be able to become members according to the university rules.
With this their membership were accepted in Bai Chanda. Since Basheer Hostel has 850 Members they were not able to have their food in the allotted one hour, there was not enough space either. So in just two or three days the members of the Basheer Hostel went on a protest against the administration asking for a new mess where all the members can be accommodated.
Since Bai Chanda also had the same problem they organized a general body meeting to take up this issue. This was the reason a combined general body meeting was called for.

Note: Bai Chanda hostel has a furnished mess hall which has been kept closed for the past two months from the time it was constructed. This Hall has a sitting capacity of 100. It is quite surprising why the new Bai Chanda mess hall is kept closed when people don’t have any place to sit and eat. As mentioned earlier Bai Chanda has a seating capacity of 120 and if we add the seating capacity of the new non operational mess it is 220, same as the Basheer Hostel Mess.
I have some points to raise here:
1. The referendum we had was for a common Mess in both the hostels, accordingly the membership must be renewed every academic year. This was not what happened, students who took admission in 2009 or 2010 were never given a choice to choose the mess of their liking as it was decided in the referendum. They automatically became members of their own respective Hostel mess. This year Bai Chanda was forced to take a few extra members from the Basheer hostel after a few students demanded to be taken in. Since then this became a General issue.
2. Why was Bai Chanda hostel reluctant to give mess memberships to their own Hostel members when Basheer Hostel could give immediate mess memberships?
3. After the General Body Meeting they brought up their demands as a Memorandum, they mention: Temporary dining arrangements must be set up, immediately, utilizing available spaces on campus, such as the non operational mess space in Mahlaqa Bai Chanda Hostel, the basements of Akka Mahadevi and Tagore hostels.
The above mentioned point doesn’t clearly say what they mean by temporary dining arrangements. Basheer Mess has 850 members and Bai Chanda 470 members, but both messes have the same seating capacity. So why can’t the students ask for equal membership in the both the Mess? Then, Basheer and Bai Chand will have 660 members each. But they are asking for temporary seating. Which means Basheer hostel mess will have the same strength till the next semester, they will be provided with a place to eat and thus settle their issue for this semester alone and Bai Chanda will have no pressure to accommodate any new members?

4. The whole issue is directed only towards the administration but we should not forget that the issue here is not only about space but also about membership and exclusivity. Membership can be sorted out among the Mess secretaries; but all they are asking for is temporary seating arrangements and a new mess. In this sense the GB does not ask the Bai Chanda secretaries to have equal students in both the hostel.

5. Issues raised in the General Body meetings concerns only ‘Indian’ students. The international students in the Campus are seen only as vote banks. When is this trend going to change in this Campus?

Monday, August 9, 2010

Violent English Media should stop acting as Gandhians!

Chaos in Bihar assembly: a new low for democracy
Democracy took a back seat in Bihar, as Opposition legislators indulged in unruly behaviour for the second consecutive day in the Assembly on Wednesday, stalling proceedings.
-The Hindu, Thursday, Jul 22, 2010
A real class act: July 25, 2010- Hindustan Times
In Kashmir, pelting stones for a price Amount ranges between Rs 5-8 lakh
'A new form of gunless terrorism'
Last updated on: February 8, 2010 15:45 IST, rediff news

The above news would shock most of us, and such News could be seen as a breaking and in no time they will have a special programme on how to stop such activities. Every one of us would think the same way and even I do feel in democracy there should be some ‘decency’ in the Assembly. Our thinking has very important influence of our Indian National Congress freedom struggle, especially Gandhi’s ideology.
In India the ‘Gandhianism’ has a very big pressure in every one’s mind whether community or an individual state of mind. The reason is whether you know about AyanKali, Phule, Ambedkar, Kashmiri history or not but for sure you would know Gandhi, Nehru, etc we are all one nation since your child hood. Therefore our school teaches us at our early stage that India’s greatness by Gandhi’s greatness of non-Violence movement. It is the result from the so-called mainstream national struggle (May be I could call Brahmins struggle for power) of Congress for ages. The question of ‘Nation’ is also a caricature in our mind created by these people. What the so-called Indian Government means by non-violence is that apart from ‘non’-violence everything is violence. There is no any clear distinction between these two categories in practical terms. Since, this is not my place to disagree Gandhis ideology of non-violence, I would just give the term non-violence explanation and go ahead with discussion.
Non-Violence: Love of the enemy, or the realization of the humanity of all people, is a fundamental concept of philosophical nonviolence. The goal of this type of nonviolence is not to defeat the enemy, but to win them over and create love and understanding between all.
Though every time we hear that Gandhi is the Father of our Nation, we are surprised the way the Indian government deals the non-violent protest with brutal violence. Hence, it is as if Gandhi is father for non-Congress people or non-national parties’ father. Because, the state sponsored violence is all put under the ‘Red’ Carpet. Either, the CPI in Nandigram, INC in Telengana, Naxal affected areas, Kashmir, North-east, etc. BJP in Ayodya etc.
Coming to the point: When a person immolated or throws stones or burns bus/train we get the information very quickly. These information’s are shown to us with a special attention the media and the government imposes on the audience, which we are always victim of the Act. When they show such activities they divert the issue and ask public opinion of such activities. They try to divert us emotionally and we fall trap to it most of the time. The simple question we should remember that there are many groups in New Delhi, Janata Mantar taking a hunger strike 24/7, how many news channels are interested in giving scrolling breaking news or live telecast. In Kashmir the media shows people pelting stones in the first page, why don’t they show Indian Army brutally using the force, and raping the civilian. Maoist killing police we can get the information immediately but not police raping innocent tribal women. Therefore even the so-called Brahminical media is interested to demonize the lower class/Caste people.
Readers would wonder how can suddenly class/Caste could appear. My explanation is when Tharoors allegiation popped, NDTV chief editor Burka Dutt had a live broadcast to make him he is right. Karunanidhi went on a fast in Tamil Nadu for Sri lankan Tamils the Sun TV/Kalaignar TV crew was broadcasting live and immediately his drama got result. If Hindu N.Ram wants to oppose/promote any issue like he did for Kashmiris issue he would certainly appear in editorials. Or his crew would report accordingly without an ‘a’an’ ‘the’. If P. Chithambaram, Home Minister wants to say lies on Kashmir issue suddenly you could see CNNIBN, NDTV, TIMESNOW, THE HINDU, and etc show suddenly stone pelters. Even the Media went ahead and said there are terrorists who are instigating the protest, without even verification. Kashmiris, Maoists, Tamil Eelaam, Telangana issues are not public issues because none of the National parties/Medias are supporting it. And it is obvious that National Parties/Media are owned by Brahmins, So that the National issue which concerns the nation as we hear is a created idea by the Medias, in that we are caricature.

We should not forget the other important things that are happening in news media especially, NDTV, CNNIBN and Times Now these Medias are acting as if they are the government/police/CBI/ Supreme Court of India. For an example when Kasab a person was caught the Media portrayed he is a Pakistian terrorist and before the court ruling they said he is the number one terrorist he should be given death sentence. It was done as they wished. How many Medias are propagating against Reservation. If you are for Anti-Reservation, they the Medias would be on your door step. If you are protesting for Reservation then no Media would come forward but throw a stone, block the road, the Media would be on your feet, But by showing you as a uncivilized person, still your message would be passed a bit. Can the media term RSS as a terrorist organization, they can never do that the simple reason is RSS has its own clout and a magazine too to claim their voice. But a frustrated common person can only show his protest to the hegemonic Brahmin media by pelting stone and throwing papers in Assembly. If these things has to change then first Brahmin Medias should give a space for subalterns and think that every issue is important and not the issues only they are interested in like Tharoor, and stop becoming mouthpiece of the Indian Government. The subaltern should verify the news.
These are the means to show their frustration, therefore the Media would carry the news at least by abusing/scandaling the issue.
This tradition would not continue for a long time, because of the Internet, Facebook, blogging, orkut, tweet are becoming very popular in protesting and expressing their views.

Saturday, August 7, 2010

Negotiations on Kashmir: A concealed story

by Masrook A Dar
August 5, 2010
Kashmir, which is the bone of contention between Pakistan and India, has seen many phases of negotiations in the past six decades. These nuclear neighbors in South Asia have fought three wars over Kashmir. The genesis of the Kashmir conflict goes back to 1947, when both India and Pakistan obtained independence from the British. A lot has been written about the nature of this conflict but less attention has been given to resolving it. Pakistan considers Kashmir as the fundamental subject of political dispute with India whereas India does not consider Kashmir as an international dispute; in fact, it considers it an internal affair.
South Asian history has witnessed many phases when both countries come to the negotiating table to discuss the complex issue of Jammu and Kashmir. The past few years in particular have seen many negotiations on Kashmir, but none of them was a success. These negotiations were either proposed by Pakistan or by India. The question we are left with is: Why do these dialogues fail? This question needs to be examined in a broader political context of Kashmir i.e. politics within Kashmir and outside Kashmir (India). Indian political leaders are of the opinion that the issue should be discussed bilaterally, while Kashmiri political leaders propose that the discussion should involve Kashmiris. Before I address this central disagreement I shall briefly outline a history of negotiations on Kashmir and their conceptual pre-suppositions.
On August 15, 1947, the Indian subcontinent won its independence from the British rule. Rulers of the princely states were encouraged to accede their states to either India or Pakistan, taking into account factors such as geographical contiguity and the wishes of their people. The Maharaja of Kashmir delayed his decision in an effort to remain independent. Being a Muslim majority State and adjacent to Pakistan, Kashmir was expected to accede to Pakistan. When the Maharaja however acceded the territory to India, it resulted in a dispute. According to the 1948 Indian White Paper, India provisionally accepted the accession until such time as the will of the people could be ascertained by a plebiscite. In fact, the then Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru made it clear in a speech on All India Radio that the people of Kashmir were free to choose their future and accede to either of the Domains:
We have declared that the fate of Kashmir is ultimately to be decided by the people. That pledge we have given, and the Maharaja has supported it not only to the people of Kashmir but the world. We will not, and cannot back out of it. We are prepared when peace and law and order have been established to have a referendum held under international auspices like the United Nations. We want it to be a fair and just Reference to the people, and we shall accept their verdict. I can imagine no fairer and juster offer.[1]
He subsequently reiterated:
I wish to draw your attention to broadcast on Kashmir which I made last evening. I have stated our government’s policy and made it clear that we have no desire to impose our will on Kashmir but to leave final decision to people of Kashmir. I further stated that we have agreed on impartial international agency like United Nations supervising referendum.[2]
In November 1947, India proposed that Pakistan withdraw all its troops first, as a precondition for a plebiscite, which Pakistan rejected on the grounds that the Kashmiris may not vote freely given the presence of Indian army and Sheikh Abdullah’s friendship with Nehru. Thus Pakistan counter-proposed simultaneous withdrawal of all troops followed by a plebiscite under international auspices, which India rejected. Pakistan therefore continued sending regular forces to Kashmir, and the first war over Kashmir broke out.
On March 17, 1948, Sheikh Abdullah became the first Prime Minister of Jammu and Kashmir. Sheikh was dismissed as Prime Minister by the then Sardr-i-Riyasat Dr. Karan Singh on August 8, 1953. Sheikh Abdullah was immediately arrested and later jailed for eleven years, accused of conspiracy against the State in the infamous “Kashmir Conspiracy Case”[3]. On April 8, 1964, the State Government dropped all charges in the “Kashmir Conspiracy Case” against Sheikh Abdullah (Sheikh Abdullah; M.Y.Taing (1985), p752). Sheikh Abdullah was released and returned to Srinagar where he was accorded an unprecedented welcome by the people of the valley” (Sheikh Abdullah; M.Y.Taing (1985), p755-757). Kashmiris saw Sheikh’s dismissal as a shift in the Kashmir policy by Nehru. The dismissal was understood in the valley as the beginning of a central control over an alienated populace. However, Indira Gandhi’s shrewd observation in May 1948 proves that it existed even as Indian troops were fighting the raiders and Pakistan’s troops in the State. The word “alienation”, which implies an earlier affection, is a misnomer. Kashmiris were never for the state’s accession to India. Realization of this bitter truth rent two devoted friends apart. Nehru could not risk holding the plebiscite he had promised, harried as he was by the Jan Sangh and the right-wing in the Congress. He pressed unwisely for a closer union. Sheikh Abdullah could no longer swear by accession and retain his popularity.[4]
Nehru’s promises remained promises on paper and were never pressed to realization. India feared that if a referendum took place, it would lose Kashmir, although Nehru thought that Sheikh Abdullah’s popular figure would be a boost to the Indian state in winning the referendum. In a letter to Nehru sent on May 14, 1948, Indira Gandhi wrote, “they say only Sheikh Saheb is confident of winning the plebiscite.” However, the fear of losing Kashmir remained President Rajendra Prasad wrote in a note to Nehru on July 14, 1953:
Last year, [Vice-Presdident] Dr. Radhakrishnan, on his return from a visit to Kashmir, came and told me that even Sheikh Abdullah thought that we would lose in a plebiscite as Sheikh Abdullah himself had told him that … but whether we win or lose in a plebiscite, with our commitments it is not possible to say that we shall not have a plebiscite if the other side presses for it.[5]
Sir Owen Dixon, the UN representative, came to the subcontinent in order to pursue UN Security Council resolution 1950 on Kashmir. Dixon got much closer to obtaining peace than any representative before or since. Dixon’s proposal assigned Ladakh to India and northern areas and Pakistan administered Kashmir to Pakistan. He split Jammu between the two, and a plebiscite would decide the status for the Kashmir Valley. Dixon’s plan failed, although Pakistan agreed to it, because Nehru did not accept the conditions in which plebiscite would be held. The Dixon Plan figured in discussions in the National Conference’s Working Committee on June 9, 1953. Chief Minister, Bakshi Ghulam Mohammed was emphatically of the opinion that this should be put up as first and the only practicable, advantageous and honorable solution of the dispute.
Following the overthrow of Sheikh Abdullah, his lieutenant Mirza Afzal Beg formed the Plebiscite Front on August 9, 1955 to fight for the plebiscite demand and the unconditional release of Sheikh Abdullah, who had been arrested after his removal. The activities of the Plebiscite Front eventually led to the institution of the ‘Kashmir Conspiracy Case’ in 1958 and two other cases[6]. Having put Abdullah behind bars on August 8 in “Kashmir conspiracy case”, Nehru could hardly risk a plebiscite. He said as much to Karan Singh and sent A. P. Jain to Bakshi[7] to explain matters.
On October 17, 1949, the Indian Constituent Assembly adopted Article 370 of the Constitution, ensuring special status and internal autonomy to Jammu and Kashmir with Indian jurisdiction in Kashmir limited to the three areas agreed in the Instrument of Accession (IOA); namely defense, foreign affairs, and communications. Five years passed without a referendum, and in 1954 the Constituent Assembly of Jammu and Kashmir ratified the accession to India. The legal authority of the Constituent Assembly and the ratification of the accession remained questionable. On October 30, 1956 the state constituent assembly adopted a constitution for the state declaring it a part of India. But soon, on January 14, 1957, the United Nations passed another resolution stating that such actions would not constitute a final disposition of the state. India’s Home Minister G. B Pant during his visit to Kashmir, for the first time, declared Jammu and Kashmir as an integral part of India shattering all the promises which the Indian Union and Pandit Nehru had made with Kashmiri people.
By 1961, the conflict resumed and the second Indo-Pak war was fought. After three weeks, the war ended with a UN facilitated ceasefire, and both the countries signed an agreement—the Tashkent Agreement. Both nations agreed to return to the status-quo ceasefire-line negotiated previously, and pledged to refrain from the use of force to resolve the dispute. After the Tashkent Agreement, both India and Pakistan signed the Shimla Agreement in 1972, which was not primarily concerned with the Kashmir dispute, but was nonetheless important. It stated that both the countries would resolve all the outstanding issues bilaterally, including that of Kashmir. From July 1972 onwards, the Shimla Agreement became the cornerstone of Indo-Pakistan relations though both have tended to give different interpretations to the Agreement at times.
After a few years of relative quiet, a widespread armed insurgency started in Kashmir with the controversial rigging of the 1987 election. Since 1987, the Kashmir dispute has claimed thousands of lives, mostly of innocent civilian Kashmiris. In the due course of time, both countries have attained the status of nuclear powers. The dialogue between the two stopped after 1987, as India took a different direction, saying that Pakistan should stop cross-border terrorism, while Pakistan denied that it is involved in any such activities. The hostilities between the two South Asian neighbors have left Kashmiri people to suffer. The dialogue between India and Pakistan resumed in 1999. The Indian Prime minister A.B. Vajpayee and his Pakistani counterpart Nawaz Sharif signed the Lahore Accord in February 1999. The Accord reaffirmed the desire of both countries to settle the dispute on the Kashmir issue. However, the Lahore Accord held only until May 1997, both countries fought a small-scale war in Kargil between May and July 1997 and all the dialogues came to a halt. Shortly after the Kargil war, General Pervez Musharraf toppled the Nawaz government and became the military ruler of Pakistan. Musharraf and the Indian Prime Minister A.B.Vajpayee met at Agra in July 2001, but failed to produce any agreement on Kashmir dispute.
On July 24, 2000, the Hizbul Mujahideen, largest militant outfit operating in Kashmir, announced a unilateral ceasefire and publicly expressed a willingness to initiate talks with the Government of India. The Government of India responded positively to the offer. The people of Jammu and Kashmir enthusiastically welcomed the development. But soon after a few days, on August 9, 2000, Hizbul Mujahideen announced its withdraw from the ceasefire. The reason for withdrawal, according to the group, was unwillingness on India’s part to involve Pakistan in the talks. Majid Dar, a leader of Hizbul Mujahideen in Srinagar, had made the offer of ceasefire. Syed Salahuddin, supreme commander of Hizbul Mujahideen, in Islamabad withdrew it.
On April 18, 2003, in Srinagar, Prime Minister Vajpayee made his own overture to Musharraf. By May, India had agreed to re-establish diplomatic ties with Islamabad, and by October, some road and rail links were resumed between the two countries. India also made an important concession by agreeing to open a line of dialogue with the All Parties Hurriyat Conference, whereas talks with Kashmiri groups had previously been denied outright. On November 26, a ceasefire offered by Pakistan to India went into effect in Kashmir territory. The year 2004 began with renewed dialogue between Musharraf and Vajpayee at a summit meeting of the South Asian nations. The then Indian National Security Advisor, Brajesh Mishra, in an interview said, “It is a victory for peace and prosperity for the people of India and Pakistan and South Asia. In my view, it’s a win-win situation for all of us.”[8]
In 2004, the Government of India for the first time invited the Hurriyat Conference for a roundtable discussion on the Kashmir issue. However, the Hurriyat Geelani group (G) refused to enter into any summit until India accepted Kashmir as a disputed territory and not its integral part. But the other faction, the Hurriyat Mirwaiz group (M), accepted to enter into the dialogue. Hurriyat leaders went to Delhi for talks with the Government of India to resolve Kashmir issue. The first round of talks was held on January 22, and the second on March 27. However, both the sessions produced little more than photo shoots. Critics in Kashmir lampooned the talks as encounters between a shopkeeper who had no desire to sell and a customer who had no money to spend. After two rounds of discussions were held, the Hurriyat stopped pursuing the dialogue process with India without going into the third round, questioning the sincerity of India in the processes.
In May 2006, Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh invited the Hurriyat Conference for talks on the Kashmir dispute. The Prime Minister and the Hurriyat agreed to establish a system to discuss solutions to the dispute over Kashmir dating from the partition of the Indian subcontinent in the late 1940s. Hurriyat (M) came up with a list of preconditions for the resumption of talks between the two sides that India rejected. In a statement to the press, Hurriyat (M) chairman Mirwaiz Umar Farooq said, “I am hopeful that a process will restart and yield results fast if India releases prisoners, gradually withdraws troops and repeals the black laws,” referring to draconian laws giving security forces expanded powers against insurrection.[9]
However, the Hurriyat boycotted the May 2006 round table conference in Srinagar, which pro-India leaders of Jammu and Kashmir, and the Prime Minister of India attended.
In between these years back-channel political discussions were going on between India and Pakistan. However, none of them has been fruitful. The New Yorker on March 2, 2009 reported that for several years, special envoys from Pakistan and India had been holding talks in hotel rooms in Bangkok, Dubai, and London. Musharraf and Manmohan Singh had encouraged the negotiators to seek what some involved called a “paradigm shift” in relations between the two nations. The agenda included a search for an end to the long fight over Kashmir, a contest that is often described by Western military analysts as a potential trigger for atomic war.
On May 2, 2009, Dr. Manmohan Singh revealed that, “Gen Musharraf and I had nearly reached an agreement, a non-territorial solution to all problems but then Gen Musharraf got into many difficulties with the chief justice and other forces and therefore the whole process came to a halt”. Pervez Musharraf proposed a four-point plan to resolve the Kashmir problem. In an hour-long interview over Pakistan Television, he said that the first stage should involve a dialogue at the highest level between the two countries and that the process of his invitation to Agra should be maintained with similar talks. The second stage required an agreement on the centrality of Kashmir as the main issue between India and Pakistan. In the third step, both sides would have to eliminate all the formulas not acceptable to each other. The last step is the discussion on the actual solution. In June 2009, Musharraf said he had convinced the entire leadership in Kashmir, except hardliner Ali Shah Gilani, about his four-point formula that envisaged demilitarization and joint control of the region.
In this context let me go back to the question, which I raised in the beginning of this paper: what then actually has lead to the failure of all these attempts towards reconciliation? An honest answer to the question will point to a trust deficit between the two blocks.
When one goes back into the history of the dispute, it becomes obvious that it was a dispute between India and Pakistan in which Kashmiris be given the choice either to accede to India or to Pakistan. However, as the time passed the dispute took a different turn, and a different school of thought came into existence which demanded a free Kashmir. Sovereign Kashmir is more common in the recent Kashmiri imagination than accession to either of the countries. The situation took a different turn after last year’s Amarnath land issue. Most of the Kashmiris came on the streets demanding freedom. Most of the Indian intelligentsia supported this popular demand of Kashmiri people. Arundhati Roy in her article “Land and Freedom” (The Guardian, Friday, August 22, 2008) wrote, “The Indian military occupation of Kashmir makes monsters of us all. It allows Hindu chauvinists to target and victimize Muslims in India by holding them hostage to the freedom struggle being waged by Muslims in Kashmir. India needs azadi from Kashmir just as much as – if not more than – Kashmir needs azadi from India.”
The peace process between India and Pakistan stopped after the 2008 attacks on Mumbai, which was carried out allegedly by Pakistani nationals. Since then both the countries are trying to start afresh a peace process to resolve all the bilateral issues including Kashmir. Due to growing international pressure to resolve the Kashmir issue, Indian government again invited Hurriyat to discuss the Kashmir issue, in 2009. Home Minister P. Chidambaram on June 11, 2009 during his visit to Srinagar, said “We would like to take small, baby steps one by one and no great leap in Kashmir.” On October 28, 2009 Dr. Manmohan Singh reached out to Kashmiri separatists, offering to resume peace talks to end decades-old insurgency in the Himalayan region[10]. Soon after the PM’s offer of talks, Hurriyat (M) welcomed the step and said they are ready to participate in the dialogue whereas Hurriyat (G) rejected any such proposal. Dr. Singh also offered unconditional talks with Pakistan to resolve Kashmir issue. Ahead of the PM’s visit to Valley, on October 15 2009, P. Chidambaram announced a quiet dialogue with all the political shades of Kashmir. What lacked in this programme was the degree of quietness. New Delhi, backed by the Jammu and Kashmir state government, kept releasing press statements that it is engaging Hurriyat (M) in the quiet diplomacy, which the latter refused.
The past three years have seen a shift in the political scenario of Kashmir. Year 2008 saw agitation against transfer of some hectares of land to the Shri Amarnath Shirine Board, resulting in the death of nearly 60 people. The resistance died after the state government revoked its decision of land transfer and the cycle of deaths was put to a halt. Peace remained elusive for some time. Soon into the summer of 2009, security forces in the South Kashmir district of Shopian saw people on the streets of Kashmir after the alleged rape and murder of two women. The anger and the resistance died after a few months. Unfortunately, the relative peace could not survive even six months, and people were seen on the streets of Srinagar again after the killing of a youth, Tufail Matoo, allegedly at the hands of security forces on June 11, 2010. These protests against human rights violations have resulted in the deaths of 25 people so far. AK 47s and other modern sophisticated weapons are seen nowhere on the streets of Kashmir; instead, the baton has been transferred to youths (as noted by APHC (M) chairman, Molvi Umar Farooq in one of his statements) who come onto the streets of Kashmir with stones in their hands as a mark of protest. Many political analysts see it as ‘intifada’ against the Indian state?
In the pretext of development and regional cooperation, India and Pakistan have once again met at the table, resuming the dialogue between the two nuclear powers that was suspended after the Mumbai attacks. Dr. Manmohan Singh met his Pakistani counterpart on the sidelines of SAARC summit in Bhutan, and both leaders agreed that relations between the two countries should be normalized and channels of contact should work effectively. Recently, on July 15, 2010, the Foreign Ministers of both countries met in Islamabad. The talks between Krishna and Qureshi ended in a deadlock, with the latter accusing India of selectively focusing on terror and ignoring its vital concerns on issues like Kashmir. India says that it will go in for gradualist, incremental approach revolving around trust-building humanitarian measures, before moving on to enlarge the scope of dialogue. However, the question remaining with us is whether this change of attitude by both the countries will come to the rescue of Kashmiris who have suffered in the last six decades. The concept of independent Kashmir makes Kashmiri people the primary stakeholders in the dispute, which is to be resolved between India and Pakistan. Both India and Pakistan should take into account all the sections of Kashmiri societies, pro-freedom leaders (both moderates and extremists) and pro-Indian leaders, irrespective of their opinions. Dialogue without any of these stakeholders will be a useless exercise.
[1] On 2nd November, 1947, broadcast to the nation over All India Radio, Pandit Nehru, PM of India
[2] Nehru’s reiteration of plebiscite pledge in a telegram to Liaqat Ali Khan, November 03, 1947
[3] Abdullah, S. M. (1986). Atish-e-Chinar. Ali Mohammad and Sons.
[4] A.G. Noorani; Harsh truths about Kashmir, Frontline Volume 20 – Issue 16, August 02 – 15, 2003
[5] President Rajendra Prasad’s letter to Jawaharlal Nehru on July 14, 1953
[7] SWJN; Volume 23; page 346
[8] India’s National Security Advisor, Brajesh Mishra, in a interview with Margaret Warner, Talking Peace; January 6, 2004
[9] Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, Chairman of the separatist alliance All Parties Hurriyat Conference, to a press conference at Srinagar, January 2009.

Masrook A Dar is a research scholar at The English and Foreign Languages University in Hyderabad, India, and was accepted onto the elite panel of Fulbright Scholars by the Fulbright Commission, USA. He was placed at Michigan State University for the year 2009-10 as a visiting Fulbright Scholar. Read more articles by Masrook A Dar.

Thursday, August 5, 2010

Experience Speaks!


I have uploaded a video in which a sanitary/sweeper/scavengers talks of his way of life. Since it is in Tamil i have translated it here with many point adding to it.

Our condition is worst, administration is prejudiced. If there are 26 Sanitary workers, and all do not work. Only 17 people work. Within this 6 workers are sent to water supply. Withing these Sanitary workers there are Badaga community (a Caste which is dominant in the Niligiris District, Tamil Nadu) too, but they work in the office/water supply. “The people in the office treat us as a slave. If we go with a complaint they would speak very nicely as we leave the place they would dump our complaint aside. Recently there was an incident, which would reveal the way we are treated”. There was a sanitary worker called Mr. Makaali, while he was standing behind the garbage tractor, the driver without noticing him took the vehicle and the back wheel ran through one of his legs. When all Sanitary workers went for asking compensation, the administration said there is no any provision such, still if Mr. Makali applies for a loan, we could sanction the amount at the earliest. Later, they sanctioned a personal loan Rs. 1, 00,000/- for his treatment. At present he can’t walk and his job is done by his wife. Kotagiri Town Panchayat has 26 sanitary workers, who are working for 21 wards, has haatis, colonies, villages etc. These 26 staffs are distributed the tractor will have 4 person, Doonigton 1, Johnson Square 2, market 5, Bustand 2, RamChand 2, bazaar 2, water supply 5, lorry 3, with this limited number we can’t take leave or attend any family functions because if we take our work would get piled up next day. On this context we demand more staffs. (This is the situation of Sweepers/Sanitary staffs across Tamil Nadu) They don’t have weekly off. Wednesday and Sundays are half a day. Our profession gives food for us and it is God, because of some people they think ill about the profession. Basically it is because of the Caste they treat us like this. Medical Facilities: We are not given any special attention in medical. And most of the time we are get treated in the Private hospital. Education For sweepers Tamil Nadu Adi-Dravida Housing and Development Corporation (THADCO) is the organization working with this people to uplift these communities. They provide scholarship for these children, if a person is Pursuing under graduation without any other assistant, they he would be provided Rs.1000/ per anum. (I don’t understand the logic; they say that to receive this money the candidate should not be availing any other assistant.) Quarters And in the office anyone talks about ‘Campline’, the place where the government quarters is situated and we live. In this area we have a public water tank. Since we are sent to clean many public tanks, we asked the administration to allow us to clean our tanks too. They said you can clean your tank, why do you ask us, after you complete your daily duties here, you can gather some people and clean your public tank. Basically we work till 5.00pm every day. How it is possible for us to go and clean our tank after this time. Apart from this we have been complain about the drainage getting mixed with the drinking water but still no response from the administration. The quarters we live was built before 50 years, without toilets and every houses now are dilapidated and like “Sunami” some houses have fallen. The quarters lack basic facilities, and we are paying Rs. 900/- as rent every month. In kotagiri you can get a good house for Rs. 1000/- with attached bathroom and a toilet. The place we live in is unclean the drainage is open, if it rains the water would be on everyone’s doors. We clean the whole town and our living place is unclean. We are tired of demanding the administration. Every time they say, we will be getting M.P’s fund, Central fund and M.L.A fund then sure we will do it. Our demand is only a basic facilities, especially a toilet, and a society center.

Tuesday, August 3, 2010

‘Proud' Dalits math’- Politics of inclusion and 'exclusion'

I am writing this in a motive not to ask to Stop ‘Caste’ politics. Rather stop Sub-Caste politics. Recently I understood that every sub-caste(within it) is proud of their being and do not wanted to share any common idea among them.
Sub-Caste virus
In Tamil Nadu there are three major Dalit Castes, Pariyar, Pallar, Arunthathiyars. Within these three Castes there are number of Sub-Castes. These three Caste groups can never come under one single platform on political context even on social. Not only that these three groups are socially different too. Pallars and Pariyars do discriminate Arunthathiyars for being associated with the scavengers job (It is a Caste profession). Such kind of bias can be found in many Indian States. In Andhra Pradesh Malas, Madigas, Rellis (including Mehtars, Pakis). Malas and Madigas have a strong enimity and Relli population is marginalized. Last but not the least Maharastra, the state where Dr. Ambedkar was born has also the same enmity within the Dalits as Mahars and Mangs, where these both communities discriminate the Bhangis population. These Caste politics doest stop between these groups, it goes ahead that even among the scavenging community. In Tamil Nadu Context, the Arunthathiyars who do jobs other than scavenging tries to disassociate with scavenging people. Within Arunthathiyars too there are differences, such as they have two major groups .1. Avva 2 Amma these two groups think they are superiors. Such kind of chauvinism prevails in each Dalit communities, Pariyars, Pallars, Arunthahtiyars, Mahars, Mangs, Chamars, Mala, Madiga etc. Overall, every Dalit Caste thinks itself ‘superior’ than the fellow Dalits. When So many differences are there within the community why do people generalize “Dalit” word, esp
Virus among Dalit Castes
There are Dalit Castes which are politically mobilized and education wise forward compared to the other (Scavengers Caste, esp.) Castes. Since there is a strong bias within the Dalit Caste each Caste are only bothered about their own being. They not only isolate but waiting for chance to pull them down.
As a result surprisingly, the inner-Reservation (Categorization of Dalits) movement was spearheaded by two major parties in Tamil Nadu one is the scavenging castes movement (aathi Thamilar Peravai) and the other is the CPI party and Pariyars and Pallars were opposing constantly. Even in the Case of Andhra Pradesh, the inner Reservation (which would have benefited Madigas, Rellis, mehtars, pakis) was stopped by the Mala community.
Even Mahars and Mangs will never accept inner-reservation, which would benefit Bhangi population (Scavenging community).

When I am saying to stop Sub-Caste politics I mean apart from asserting their sub-Caste, they should even voice for other Dalit communities which are not politically mobilized and consider them as one of the fellow being or Dalits’ (at the same time never become the mouth peace for these people). This problem still prevails for many reasons, two very important reasons are the ‘educated’ Dalits who for their life time use Reservation policy and forget to even identify publicly that they belong to this community, political leaders are not exceptions for the same.
Second. Educated Dalits getting boozed up with the ‘Brahminical’ ideas such as meritocracy. Therefore this Proud ‘Dalits’(educated Dalits) are one of the main reasons for the failure of Dalit movement. The mail group ‘Sakya’ which only talk of Pariyar Kalai vila is a good example.
Dr. Ambedkar saw Dalits as a uniform category suffering by the Caste system. He wanted to eradicate the social system. But So-Called Dalit intellectuals, academicians, activists, political leaders, who speak on Dr.Ambedkar for thousand times never ever considered all Dalits are marginalized rather they think their particular Caste is marginalized and they wanted to become ‘Brahmins’. Therefore their idea is not to eradicate Caste system but to be equal to Brahmins. Or else to they hold the structure to enjoy Government policies, and end up in being a Proud Dalits.

View My Stats