@darkprince2490
10 months ago
​ @subramaniamarunachalam130  so, according to you, JSD is a casteist and racist both!
It's like an abrahamist accusing indians of "heathenry" though the concept is only found in the bible and makes sense only there!
12
@subramaniamarunachalam130
10 months ago
 @darkprince2490  one of jsd's complaints in this speech: "the caste system was destroyed when the British brought abt an employment system based on qualifications". He whines abt it like it's a bad thing  what does that mean? That he wants a birth based employment system. Maybe you should actually pay attention to the actual things he says than blindly applauding all his nonsense
5

@darkprince2490
9 months ago (edited)
​ @subramaniamarunachalam130  You're just fabricating allegations. No, JSD does not want a "birth based employment system". And, no, he is not talking about every tom dick and harry "job" out there. He is talking here about preservation of veda which has been the province of pathashalas and barring that within families themselves. Even your blue eyed boy Amreeka celebrates "family businesses" to no end. JSD is concerned with the preservation of India's culture which is essential to ensure foreign imperialism never strikes this land again. I'm sure that will dissapoint a faithful sepoy like you.
What JSD says in this video is that Indians/hindus had to resort to getting jobs in the colonial sepoy beuracracy after the native industries had been destroyed. Western authors say the same thing and India is not the only place this happened. There were no such thing as "jobs" prior to the rise of "professional classes" in conjunction with Europe's looting/criminal network that it deployed throughout the world. Even still, in Mahabharata, the pandavas take positions as various types of workers, including as an advisor to a king. Academics have identified a military market operating in Maratha times. So, your understanding of Indian social structure is woefully inadequate and you just conflate the slave/serf feudal system operative in Europe for millennia in which the church owned all land/"peasants" with that of Bharata. In europe, the nobility were opportunistic collaborators with the church until they struck out on their own with Anglicanism.
It is actually from the internalized monotheist attitudes (master/slave, believer/nonbeliever dichotomy) of this sepoy collaborator class that any identifiable casteist and racist attitudes seeped into Bharatiya society (with these attitudes anachronistically mapped onto varnas). For example, who promotes racialist theories like AIT in indian society? Answer: the secularists, a colonial collaborator class. Mughals also had such a collaborator system called Mansabdari system in which collaborators aped muslim manners against unbelievers. Casta is a portuguese term. And racism is well known for its origin in the west as an extension of Christian enslavement of nonwhites. These "snitchy" and dystopian collaborator systems are necessarily hierarchical, being copies of the European/Churcjh feudal system, but they are very different than social system in Bharata. No varna ruled over another in Bharata, even the kings were bound by dharma. And none interfered in the cultural practices of another - the heathens were known for their cultural tolerance.
The dysfunctional, dystopian, and paranoid dynamics of an overgrown church bureaucracy (which is what western monotheist "society" is), where diktat and fatwa rule the roost, is not the same as a natural heathen society where tradition, dharma, rta are guarded and prized. Two completely different beasts.
At any rate it is a fallacy to think of a varna as monolithic entity - the kshatriya did not conspire about brahmins and vaishya. Kshatriyas fought against other kshatriyas. Similarly Brahmins were no self-interest group. To conceive of them as such requires attributing to them biblical levels of conspiratorial thinking, more rooted in atrocity literature than reality. Sharm kar be itna behuda mat ban.
JSD sometimes uses western terms so he may have said "caste system" in some off-hand way, but he usually distinguishes feudal caste slave/serf system of Europe/mideast from jati varna of Bharata. Jati is ethnicity, which necessarily exists in every culture. Jati (from gyati=knwledge) itself is a term implying a guild and not necessarily "birth". Rama and the ferryman were of the same jati (Rama as ferryman) and so the ferryman did not charge Rama anything. Even today, such professional courtesy is shown in bharata. Varna is a theoretical term to understand various levels of duty in a Dharmik society. Still, the real ethnic marker in ancient Bharata was gotra which was actually shared between across varnas.
if you want to say that spirituality was monopolized by the Brahmins, then even that is wrong, because all ties are renounced in the various renunciate orders.
I suggest you take a look at the statement by jitendra tyagi, who left cult islam, where he states that there was no individual-level animosity between neighbors before arrival of monotheists in this land - yes kings fought each other but there was no nafrat at the public level. This nafrat is a consequence of the believers, where the early christians refused civic participation in preference to their own ideological company. Similarly, no identity politics in ancient Bharata.
You need a master class in decolonization from JSD.
You will always flounder if you lack a basic understanding of the differences between a monotheist "society" (church hierarchy writ large across a society it conquers or "harvests", exploits) and a heathen society (unstructured by edict, but whose dynamics can be interrogated via the conceptualization of varna). 

================================================================

@darkprince2490
10 months ago (edited)
This is venturing into the deep end but still, it is a learning point..
There are actually hundreds if not thousands of faceless hindu intellectuals going back more than two decades on whose backs both these two giants stand. Due to temperamental differences, JSD acknowledges their contribution while RM does not. And it is this difference in mindset that leads to friction between the two. RM has tried to confront JSD on some supposed gaffes. And JSD irked by these continuous minor interrogations finally called it quits with RM. Likely the temperamental differences are based partially on their different origins, RM is poor vaishya background with american corporate influence who always "takes credit" for "his work", while JSD is poor brahmin background. As said of the brahmin, their words may be sharp but their hearts are sympathetic. Likely, RM saw some of "his" points reflected in JSD's speeches and lashed out passive aggressively. And it bulit up to a rift.
RM has swung much further towards JSD's position as the years have gone by. For example, he used to actually be against focusing on AIT, which he said detracted from more important issues. He also attacked mathams directly by calling them "moron swamis" perhaps little acknowledging their historical constraints. In Hindu society, it is the mathams that "empower" or protect society by their sadhana while it is the duty of society at large to provide a safe place for the mathams. (For example, the sister protects the brother with raksha bandhan, or the priest protects the king or sponsor of the yagna with the tying of Kalawa). That is, it's not really the Matham's role to fight foreign invaders and their ideologies (The intelligentsia class was actually kshatriya in ancient bharata). Subconsciously, RM may be chancing upon this dynamic with his term "intellectual kshatriya" (which he applies to himself). Side point: in the shastra, the kshatriya has soft words but a hard heart. From the example of RM, we can say the vaishya (vast majority of hindus as husbandmen and artisans with a small "trader" offshoot) have hard words and a hard heart.
Thus, RM's shoot from the hip style ("moron swamis") also irks JSD.
JSD himself has been moving to his current position - for example, he used to believe that caste discrimination was hindu in origin, while he now correctly acknowledges the colonial origin of both caste/casta and caste discrimination attitude (the believer/nonbeliever distinction of monotheism when applied to a colonial collaborationist setting/bureaucracy morphs into what we recognize as casteist attitude which is related by type to the disdain the monotheist has for the nonbeliever; while hierarchical and static castes themselves have never existed in india and have been inappropriately and anachronistically conflated with both jati ethnicity and native ritualistically enacted theorization on the varna-s). (Here RM was much ahead of JSD - he did the initial work on Risley).
RM's critique of monotheism is based on its history-centrism (ie, the reinforcing conflation between the two monotheist concepts of manifest destiny/"progress"/fate and singular historical factuality/"truth" eg, Jesus is the son of god), and within this are based his exposes of cultural appropriation, inculturation, control of the narrative, and institutional abuse of power. While JSD's conceptual framework is broader and more generic, based on a conceptualization of the monotheist self as unilateralist while the heathen self is relational. Using this more basic conception, taken from Ghent, JSD can derive much of RM's work and go deeper eg, into monotheist alienation and monotheist "moralizing ethics" derived from a self-asserting/intentionalist "moral self" or "believing self" utterly alienated from its surrounds, from nature. From this position, JSD can also derive the whole gamut of historical monotheist colonial/political interventions. Interestingly Ghent and RM also had a rift.
That said It's not important to concentrate on the differences between the two. They are both stellar and on the same side, unlike many other pretenders/western collaborators masquerading as "rightist intellectuals" who are actually among our enemies.