Racism, castes and shame - Rejoinder to a Comment

Following my earlier post on 'Racism, castes and shame,' I received an interesting comment from a friend. I think that the subject matter and the debate is important enough to be addressed directly in a post rather than in the comment section.

Here is the body of the comment:

"
...it is far more honourable to be correct than to be politically correct. Let us not get into breast beating because of a brain washed wimpy new generation.

Nature loves winners and they are naturally the Strong. The Weak are food for the Strong. Looking at the Strong, however, the Weak can also learn/progress ,bide their time, and at times turn the tables.When that happens, they must eat/ dominate the erstwhile Strong - that too is justice. Look for instance at wildlife. A pride of lions can chase a herd of bison and maybe kill a weak one. But a single bison would most likely kill a small lion. Also, if a herd were to stand firm, lions would have to look elsewhere.

Surviving deer get to build greater speed into their genes .Nature has room for all.

Just because some semi-literate self styled experts (western christian/ liberal)preach a feel good new doctrine, one doesn't throw darwinism, nietzsche, vivekananda and Manu out the door. To evolve and become more and more superior until each one becomes the Superman he is capable of being, is one's Duty. Humans are not equal. Each is at a different evolutionary level of soul/ physical form. By forcing a terrible, artificial equality, we would descend into communism again.

Varnashrama- is based on a profound and well organized system of social order. Its present form may be corrupted. But if one were to follow a suitable mix of the Mandarin system ( meritocracy based on testing) instead of heriditary caste system, you have the best of all worlds.

If you look at affirmative action in the USA and Reservation quotas in India, that is a correction. It is also as apparently evil as the problem it seeks to remedy, but will run its course.

Nature balances everything. You would recall- from Brownian motion, the sum of all moments is ZERO!

"

And here is what I think.

First, let's assess the key argument that you have made, i.e. if 'it' happens in nature, it is correct. Dominance and predation is observed in nature, so that is factually correct. But racism, casteism are not so observed. Does that mean that racism and casteism are unnatural?

Further, extension of your argument of nature- based dominance to culture- based discrimination implicitly assumes that this extension is valid. This is a point I disagree on. Human societal and cultural values may be derived from nature but clearly these are more than just that. We humans do make clear preferences about things that may not be directly sanctioned by nature. To take your own suggestion of spirituality ("evolutionary level of soul"); soul is not an observed entity in nature while matters related to soul/ religion can occupy a major position in human lives.

For me it is clear that as humans we make choices - in as much as the concept of free choice is a valid one - about what we want to be as individuals and as a group or a society. And this is central to the issue of racism or castes: what kind of society do we want to build and live in.

Second, the notion of 'artificial equality' that you bring up. I agree that all human beings are not "equal". They are neither born equal: After all, there is a lottery in terms of genes affecting health, looks and perhaps even intelligence; let alone the family circumstances, society and geography differs which can drastically after their nurture, nutrition and survival. (This is analogous to the term 'natural endowments' in Economics.) Nor are we "equal" in terms of our responses, efforts, etc. as we live our lives. All this inequality is observable without succumbing to any notions of 'supermen' or different spiritual development.

Now as you would notice, the above- mentioned usage of "equality" implies same-ness. And enforcing that kind of equality is artifical and abhorrent, let alone being impossible. Is it this notion of equality that we are talking about when we refer to racism and castes? No. If anything, the relevant notion of equality is that of equality of opportunity.

Racism and casteism strongly vitiate against equality of opportunity. Despite being socio- cultural constructs, these serve to artifically distort personal choices, reduce access to education and social infrastructure and hence also subsequent economic contribution. Essentially, racism and casteism are themselves artifical barriers, anything but natural, and if society were to be viewed in terms of a 'market' (in the economic sense) these are market imperfections. In sum, they are at least as bad a case of artificiality as communism. To use words similar to yours, "enforcing a terrible, artifical" inequality (like racism or castes) can also cause us to descend into nightmares of a shattered, fragmented, dysfunctional society.

Finally, your mention of corrections and things evening out in the long run (I especially liked the bit about brownian motion, a sweet allusion to our undergraduate studies) is valid but neither here nor there. In the long run, to paraphrase Keynes, we are all dead.... and in the very long run, the physical entropy can only increase. Remember the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

But so what? In my view, consciousness is the prime anti- entropy force. And if we call ourselves conscious, sentient beings then we have a responsibility to do what is right and not merely let so- called nature run its course. As you are fond of saying, "all this is Maya", an illusion. Well, even if we are mere actors in a play, let us be good actors, let us be the best actors we can be.

Join the side of the Force, Lord Vader :-)

Racism, castes and shame

These days, UK is commemorating the bicentenary of the 1807 Abolition of Slave Trade Act. Newspapers coverage of Blair's message to Ghana highlighted his (implicit) refusal to apologise for Britain's role in slavery since he had only expressed "deep sorrow and regret" for the suffering of the people. Later this was followed by a protester interrupting the church service attended by the Queen to demand an apology.

However, what made an impact on me, was viewing a documentary, "Racism - A History" on BBC 4 on March 28. Here is BBC press office's description

"Filmed in Australia, the United States, India and Southern Africa, A History Of Racism turns its attention to the development of eugenic theories and explores the historical connections between the colonial genocides of the 19th century and one of the pivotal events of the 20th: the Holocaust.

The programme begins by examining the violence perpetrated on native races by the early European settlers in Tasmania. These atrocities were given legitimacy in the middle of the 18th century with the development of "Social Darwinism". This new theory applied the principle of "the survival of the fittest" – previously used to account for natural selection in the animal world – to human society. It was hard to ignore the fact that, as Europe's Empire-builders spread across the globe, the pre-existing populations of the countries they colonised had a tendency to perish.

Social Darwinism presented the extinction of these "weaker" human races as an inevitable and entirely "natural" consequence of their racial inferiority. The theory provided a pretext for the domination, exploitation and even extermination of the so-called "darker races" in the Pacific, South East Asia and Southern Africa for years to come."

The documentary turned out to be thought- provoking and deeply disturbing. So much so, that at the end, my wife made a comment, "I am ashamed of the 'white' blood that I carry." But I remained silent.

Silent because of a phrase used in describing the mindset of the Social Darwinians and Eugenicists - ".... a hierarchy of races ..."

Silent because then it had struck me that our glorious Indian Caste System was same in essence. Not that this was absolutely new knowledge. Thrust of an intellectual fencer would be that originally castes were based on occupation and not on birth. I know that, too. Two years ago, I gave a presentation on the subject to a bunch of 12-14 year olds at Lycee Francaise in London; and I took great pains to explain the origins of the 'Varna' system. Pity that then no kid asked me the question which I asked myself now ... Forget the origins; what is the reality in the here and now? Isn't is a form of racism? And I was forced to admit to myself, the answer is, "Yes, casteism is a form of racism."

Silent because suddenly I was ashamed. It just wasn't enough that I can claim to personally not have discriminated against anyone on basis of caste. Ashamed that I hadn't done enough; ashamed that whenever a non- Indian had commented on the evils of the present day caste- system, I had made the issue sound smaller than what it is, either by pointing to the origins or to highlight the progress made in the past few decades.

Perhaps, it was because of the pride I take in Indian and Hindu heritage; may be I was motivated by a desire to 'protect' India and Hindu culture and society. Now I think that pride/ nationalism was misplaced. Truer pride lies in acknowledging and righting the wrongs.