Khan Saheb Kamal Haasan's Jamaat/Jeba Koottam/Devasthaanam - Part 8

[kid-glove]

And keeping it short, longer paragraphs means more typing and it feels like work.

[kid-glove]

Moving on to Viswa, Circumcision should be KH's first real area of concern..

[equanimus]

Hitler wanted to kill the Jews and imagined a world without them (even if one could argue he couldn't have lived without them). But seriously, come on, k-g. It's the exact opposite here. The Jew is the other for Hitler, the upper-caste Hindu is the self for Kamal.

And just to add to what I've said in the previous posts, do you seriously suggest Kamal's treatment is not seeped in Hindu mythology which is VERY UNLIKE how (to repeat my example) a Jananathan would do it? It's never just about what one's (sincere) standpoint is. The people who find a space in one's films, the people who are represented is absolutely crucial. Is it only to vociferously criticise brahminism that he spontaneously keeps returning to brahmin milieus, Hindu mythology in his films? (Note that brahmins haven't been proper antagonists in his films as the Zamindars once were in Indian films. Now, that would be the kind of portrayal that would be properly aligned to the Dravidian movement.) They simply are around in his films. He criticises their values and so on, I'm not arguing otherwise. But isn't there more to it than just that?

[kid-glove]

I was messing with you. Like I often do. (See the later posts)

I know what you're hitting at.

In a manner of speaking, even Welles put it about THE atheistic filmmaker of all time, 'He is a deeply Christian man who hates God as only a Christian can, and, of course, he's very Spanish. I see him as the most supremely religious director in the history of the movies.'

[P_R]

Equa, k_g is just being flippant. You should have inferred that from the fact that, no one in their right mind can be less than deferential to Sachin.

In a manner of speaking, even Welles put it about THE atheistic filmmaker of all time, 'He is a deeply Christian man who hates God as only a Christian can, and, of course, he's very Spanish. I see him as the most supremely religious director in the history of the movies.'

idhAru? Bunuel-mbAingaLE? avarA?

[P_R]

indha mAdhiri discussion-gaLla devil's advocate-A irukkuRavan kooda total-A tharisAguradhukku dhAn vAippu adhigam. irundhAlum kattAyam indha thyAgaththai naan senju dhaan aagaNum...

Sathya, I find the identity of caste itself as vulgar. Language, nation, gender are attributes that are not be definition hierarchical (adha vechu naan periyavan nee sinnavan nu adichukkalaam adhu Vera). OTOH, the notion of caste is completely different.

Race, ethnic identity of any sort, tribal roots (Africa mudhal North East states varai) problem idhu dhaan.

In the olden days when we here of wars between Kings, isn't it a war between two contesting ways of life? That's right 'ways of life'. In some cases it was religion, in others it was caste (a broad definition of it). Someone going to war is going there prepared to die for a way of life, isn't it?

Can you imagine a Saivite-Vaishnavite fight now? When Kadalangudi Natesayyar built the SivaVishnu temple in T Nagar, I guess it must have been a great step forward in intergration Today most of us are: theriyumadA, reNdum oNNu dhaana dA, kozhappureengaLE dA

In the past caste (and religion) defined a complete way of life. This is true to much lesser extent now than earlier. Dtill it is important to remind ourselves that it is very much true even today - much more than we would like to acknowledge - but naan pointukku varEn...
The question I always like to ask is - do we today feel a sense of affinity for a stranger of one's own caste. i.e. feel an affinity simply because he belongs to one's own caste (namma paya). Most of us feel no such thing. But for our parents, grandparents would have felt that way. The identity was more important to them.

And even in their case I allege, it was largely to do with how a certain caste dictated a way of life, even including education, exposure, employment etc.

Now, we all still judge people based on education, exposure, employment etc. But these are primary considerations and therefore caste is relegated to the background. i.e. we aren't "better" people than our previous generations. Just that the social relevance of caste has watered down.

The way such a thing goes out of the window is by social irrelevance.

I will refrain from making the shaky argument that caste can persist without discrimination. That is not something I can say with certainty. But it is certainly true that over time there has been a great decoupling.

Ambedkar argues exceedingly well in his treatise "the Annihilation of Caste" that it is impossibly for caste to exist without discrimination. That, it is either a genuinely naive pipe-dream or intentionally duplicitous line of thinking to say caste can exist without discrimination.

And it had to go. Of course, being the thinker that he is, he saw caste for what it was - a social institution that rose from the ground over time- rather than as a cunning scheme whose sole purpose of existence was subjugation. And most importantly he observed that the urge to preserve caste identities is definitely not something top-down but across the board in the hierarchy.

Which is not surprising because caste was coupled (more so in the 1930s than now) in shaping an Indian's personality just as much as other forms of identity - language, religion etc. Imagine what it means to say that in the 1930s when people were offering pussyfooted compromises, that the whole thing needs to go and intermarriages are the only way out!

Beyond this point the questions here need to be inward. Because in a public debate, people feel compelled to respond, defend their positions etc. and it is hardly productive.

Now forget identity for a moment. There are people who fall in love and walk out of their families to marry. To them their individual choices are more important. The family is less relevant to them. (note: I am not talking about intercaste marriage or anything, yet. Just talking about viewing marriage as an individual choice vs. extension/addition to a family tree)

Now, who can marry outside their language? The one's who think that that is not a fundamental part of their identity. That they feel they do not need such a shared cultural root to make a relationship work. Can't share literature, pop-culture references, idioms, cultural mores. But all these could happen to be less important to some people. More important to others.

Same for religion, same for nationality and same for caste. All of the above have happened in my family and close friends' circle. In each of the cases I have seen an intial whimper and then it becomes about the person - and like all marriages it's been about give and take. Quite possibly the case with many of you too.

It is as and when a 'shared cultural background' becomes more and more irrelevant that these identities will dissipate.

The point to note is: its only when a cultural continuity becomes irrelevant that an individual can make such choices.

Now, one curious thing may happen. The family can still take up the identity of more dominant partner. Or it can take on a mix of identities from both partners and what is felt as irrelevant baggage will drop and a new identity will get created. But it is my opinion that some sort of identity will exist.

Personally, I don't think we will ever become like America, or for that matter those of Indian origin in other countries - who can't trace their ancestry back to more than 4-5 generations. It is only in such contexts of substantial absence of social history can caste 'vanish'. In our case, I think it will continue to exist, but what it means will keep changing. And changing for the 'good'.

[P_R]

btw naan solRa social irrelevance ellAm oru small sliver of the population-ku dhaan.
For most of the people caste oppressive reality - it has not gone anywhere, we can't remind ourselves enough of that.

Recently in Kammapatti, the local Kambalathu Nayakars stopped sending their children to school because the saththuNavu koodam was manned by Dalits. And so the government transferred the Dalit staff

The additional collector defended this discrimination by saying: 'this is a peculiar habit of that caste to not eat food cooked by other castes'. Check out this article - ignore the dumb title!

And mind you TN is one of the leading states when it comes to social mobility of Dalits. ingayE indha nilamai - with govt supporting discrimination to boot - then just imagine the situation in places in North Indies.

Remember Periyar came out of Congress, because they were using party funds to support the gurukulam in Cheranmadhevi, where permission was given to brahmin boys to dine privately, because their parents did not want them to dine in a samapandhi bOjanam. And that was in the 1920s!

[venkkiram]

I recently came across this quote and find it very meaningful. (except F word usage)

[P_R]

Typically superficial point by Carlin.
ketta vArththai sonnA indhaaLu cool-aam. sariyAna mokkai.

[venkkiram]

Typically superficial point by Carlin.
ketta vArththai sonnA indhaaLu cool-aam. sariyAna mokkai.

இல்லைன்னாலும் செறிவான கருத்துதானே!