000-tobecategorised

Why Congress Mustn't Go Back on Rahul Gandhi's Caste Census, Social Justice Promise  Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd https://thewire.in/politics/why-congress-must-not-go-back-on-rahul-gandhis-promise-of-caste-census-social-justice  

What the Congress’s Dwija  (Brahmin, Baniya, Kayastha, Khatri and Ksatriya) leaders who oppose Rahul Gandhi’s carefully crafted social justice agenda do not understand is that he is re-shaping the Congress in the context of post-Mandal developments and in the given context of the RSS/BJP’s ideological position on caste. Caste identity, particularly, the OBC identity has become a force after the Mandal movement and V.P Singh’s regime implemented the Mandal Commission report (even if it was just one recommendation). Since the Congress under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi opposed the Mandal report implementation, the Shudras/OBCs started distancing themselves from the party. A large number of Shudras/OBCs believe that the Congress is a Dwija-Muslim party. They believe that is the identity of the party. That identity needs to change for the Congress to win national elections in which the Shudra/OBC vote matters the most.

The Indira -Rajiv’s anti-OBC reservation policy led to the rise of the RSS/BJP in the country. That also led to the formation of many Shudra/OBC regional parties which weakened the Congress. They always recognised the Muslim minority identity in their politics but never accepted caste identities.

Did Periyar call for a genocide of Brahmins ? KARTHICK RAM MANOHARAN  Mar 29, 2024 https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/periyar-genocide-brahmins-tm-krishna-sangita-kalanidhi-music-academy-madras-carnatic/article67997754.ece
In hierarchical societies, reformers challenge the status quo with provocative and uncivil speech. Accusing them of hate speech is ill-intentioned.

Hate speech and offensive speech are ruptures in civility. But, importantly, both are not the same...

In an important chapter on hate speech in his book Offend, Shock, or Disturb (2018), Gautam Bhatia writes: “Hate speech legislation is constituted upon the understanding that words can have consequences, that words cannot be separated from broader practices of subordination and inequality in divided societies, and that words can actually impede equal enjoyment of rights, and equal access to social and physical infrastructure”

For example, statements like “white people are racists” and “Black people have criminal tendencies” both rely on generalisations. Both could be legitimately considered offensive. But in racially hierarchical societies where whites enjoy disproportionate social, political, and economic privileges, the first statement is extremely unlikely to cause actual grievous collective harm, while the latter can actually affect the progress of Black people. The latter can be said to constitute hate speech.

Civility has its advantages because often it is the right wing that makes optimal use of the collapse of civility. We can and must insist on civility, but this should not blind one to the difference between uncivil speech from dominant forces and those representing subaltern interests. The former instigates and sustains violence in society; the latter, as provocative as it may be, is a comment on inequalities in society. The use of offensive speech in social justice movements could be hurtful, but it compels a rethinking of society; hate speech, entrenched in dominance, stifles thought, including civil dialogues.

The totalitarian project behind the electoral bonds scheme https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/bjp-modi-electoral-bond-scheme-truth-hindu-rashtra/article68001490.ece 
.  Mar 29, 2024 PARANJOY GUHA THAKURTA,ABIR DASGUPTA Beyond trade-offs and extortion, the scheme goes to the very heart of the Sangh Parivar’s long-term goal of an ideological dictatorship

Transparency in political finance requires transparency on both sides—fund-raising and expenditure. These structural features are barriers to transparency at both ends. ..Transparency as a lens and a goal, however laudable, is not a political principle in itself. It cannot be disconnected from the ideological. This is where it is necessary to return to the larger political project within which the electoral bonds scheme was implemented...

when the government brought in the electoral bonds scheme, the BJP was already far outstripping the other parties in donations: so what was the need for the scheme? The answer to this question lies in the form of society and polity that the Sangh Parivar’s wider project seeks to create. That society features a totalitarian and authoritarian state, with a permanently mobilised para-state, primed to the over-riding priorities of its ideological project. This system oversees every individual’s life, in as granular detail as it is able to, and it relies on people to act as its enforcers, whether out of belief or fear. Virtually no personal choice remains in that society, every person’s life and mission is to serve the national project. That state brooks no form of independent motivation in any institution or individual in the public sphere (including anyone who might donate funds) that does not adhere to its political project and priorities. It is inconceivable for any committed individual, association, or company, to not contribute to the national project, whether monetarily or otherwise—it is everyone’s civic and national duty.