My thesis on Brahmin Privilege (read the entire thred)1. If I am a Brahmin, I will be revered in the society and a “Ji” will be added to my name. I will be known as a pundit, although I. #dilip c mandal

My thesis on Brahmin Privilege (read the entire thred)

1. If I am a Brahmin, I will be revered in the society and a “Ji” will be added to my name. I will be known as a pundit, although I can be dumb or even illiterate.... (Cont.)

(Inspired by Peggy Mcintosh)
2. If I am a Brahmin, there will not be any difficulty in getting public accommodation. I need not fear that people of my caste cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places they choose.

3. Almost all public places will be open for me....
4. I will find restaurants serving food according to my cultural choices. Asking food of my choice will not be considered a bad thing. Rather, that will enhance my stature.

5. If my neighbour or co-traveller knows my caste identity, he/she will not hate me or look down upon me.6. I can upload my profile on Brahmin matrimonial sites and not face prejudice.

7. There is every possibility that the interview board I will be facing in a university department will have representatives of my caste.
8. If I am a Brahmin, I can be sure that the books and texts prescribed in the school and college syllabus will reflect my cultural leaning, and many of them will be written by people belonging to my caste....
9. Whenever I am told about our national culture or about Hindu civilisation, I am sure that I am hearing about something that is our caste heritage.

10. Whenever I will be travelling to any Hindu religious place, I will find no difficulty in getting accommodation.11. If am travelling abroad, I will find a diaspora dominated by my caste members. Many of them are employed because of the diversity policies of foreign companies.

12. Despite getting jobs due to the affirmative action policies in the West, I will keep opposing reservation.
13. Despite getting jobs under diversity principle, I will not consider myself less meritorious.

14. I will oppose affirmative policies of India and consider myself caste-blind or caste-neutral. Opposing reservation will not make me casteist.
15. When I enter a music store and ask for traditional Indian music, there is a fair possibility that the shopkeeper will hand me over something that has been produced by my caste brethren.
16. My caste gets almost 100 per cent reservation for the position of a priest, but I dislike the constitutional scheme of reservations.

17. I will be considered eligible to speak on every topic. My ‘C’ grade work will be cited in research papers by virtue of my surname.
18. Being oblivious and ignorant about the customs, traditions and present situation of the majority population, which is lower caste, does not make me a bad scholar. I will still talk about the whole nation.
19. My love for the nation and patriotism are a given, and even if someone of my caste sells defence secrets to Pakistan or China that will have no bearing on my caste.

20. My caste is the mainstream.
21. I get jobs in the private sector easily because my name is referred to by people of my caste in higher positions. But that does not make me casteist.

22. If I speak for the backward classes or SCs, I will be considered humanist and democrat.
23. But if someone from the lower caste does the same, he/she will be branded casteist.

24. When I watch television to follow news or debates, my caste people are over-represented as analysts, anchors and editors.
25. My caste people write most of the opinion pieces in the ‘National Press’.
The university libraries are full of books written by scholars of my caste.

26. If I do something foolish or boorish, or even heinous, nobody will attribute it to my caste.
27. I will consider myself a great humanist for eating or studying or working together with a Dalit or attending marriage of someone from the lower caste. This is sufficient to make me caste-neutral.
28. If my hostel mate is someone of a lower caste, I can produce this fact to prove that I am not casteist.

29. If I am a Brahmin and if a case is being heard in the higher judiciary, there is a fair possibility that someone of my caste will be at the bench to hear my case.
30. If I am a Brahmin, I will find it easy to publish my thesis in an academic journal where people of my caste are members of the editorial board. (Thanks Prof. Peggy Mcintosh for writing White Privilege)
Wow Anamika Shukla. This is called privilege!

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/up-govt-teacher-earns-rs-1-crore-by-working-in-25-schools-1685746-2020-06-05?utm_source=it_sticky_footer&__twitter_impression=true

Many of the Brahmin friends are saying that they haven't experienced such privileges. The truth of the matter is that such privilege are meant to be invisible. This is about social & cultural capital which one can utilize at appropriate time. At the same one can act ignorant.In western academia, we have ample literature on white privilege, mostly written by white scholars. As no Brahmin scholar has the guts and the honesty to write on the privileges they have, I tried to map this phenomenon based more on common sense and a perspective from below.Yet another thesis on #Brahmin Privilage. Author - Sumeet Samos

It seems that this field is now opening up and we need epistemological and ontological interventions, especially from the Brahmin scholars. https://t.co/BmsoJwZ84b
Saurabh Chaudhary copied each and every word of my thesis on #Brahmin Privilege and published it. I have to read his thesis on Quora to know about my thesis on Brahmin Privilege.

This is called privilege.This is called privilege. https://t.co/I45OPI3fg3h

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Brahmin-privilege-exist
“In my judgment, it is useless to make a distinction between the secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins. Both are kith and kin. They are two arms of the same body, and one is bound to fight for the existence of the other.” - Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, Annihilation of Caste, chapter -21
Dilip C Mandal

https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/up-govt-teacher-earns-rs-1-crore-by-working-in-25-schools-1685746-2020-06-05?utm_source=it_sticky_footer&__twitter_impression=true

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

ये फोटो में जिस जज को आप देख रहे हैं इनका नाम है जस्टिस कर्णन...पूरा नाम है चिन्नास्वामी स्वामीनाथन कर्णन....ये जज साहेब न्यायालय की अवमानना ​​के लिए छह महीने की जेल की सजा काटकर अब बाहर आ रहे हैं... वह मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय के न्यायाधीश थे। वहां के पहले दलित न्यायाधीश और पहले दलित न्यायाधीश रहते हुए जेल की सजा काटने वाले भी पहले न्यायाधीश हैं--सजा किस बात की दी गई....सच बोलने की...!!!आइए थोड़ा पीछे ले चलते हैं ...वर्ष 2017 में उन्होंने प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी को एक पत्र भेजा....इस पत्र में 20 न्यायाधीशों के भ्रष्टाचार की जानकारी थी....पत्र "सच्चा" था इसलिए "विवाद बड़ा" था! सच से संवैधानिक संकट पैदा हो गया...!! क्योंकि इतिहास में पहली बार किसी मौजूदा न्यायाधीश ने दूसरे न्यायाधीशों पर भ्रष्टाचार का आरोप लगाये थे। केंद्र सरकार इस पत्र को जारी करने के लिए तैयार नहीं थी। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने न्यायमूर्ति कर्णन के खिलाफ न्यायालय की अवमानना ​​का मामला दर्ज कर लिया..! अब बारी थी सच को "कैद-ए-बामशक्कत" देने की....! सब सच के खिलाफ लट्ठ लेकर खड़े हो गये...!!!न्यायमूर्ति कर्णन ने सुप्रीम कोर्ट के मुख्य न्यायाधीश और कुछ अन्य न्यायाधीशों को पांच साल के कठोर कारावास की सजा सुनाई गई। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने सच को कैद कर दिया। चिन्नास्वामी स्वामीनाथन कर्णन उर्फ दलित न्यायाधीश ने छह महीने की जेल की सजा काटी। उस समय उनका विरोध करने वालों ने कहा था कि वे पागल हैं....लेकिन फिर समय बीता....फटाफट तमाम जज मलाई खाने के लिए जगह-जगह फिट कर दिए गये...फिर एक जज के यहां करोड़ों रूपए निकल आए...!!!चिन्नास्वामी स्वामीनाथन कर्णन उर्फ दलित जज सजा काट कर बाहर आ गये और सच भी बाहर आ‌ गया लेकिन...!!बकलम-चंदन कुमार.. ✍🏻 (लेखन में भाषाई सजावट मैंने की है)

Six Months Cooling-off period under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act not mandatory, SC [Read judgment] Section 13B(2) FacebookTwitterWhatsAppShare2,014 The Supreme Court today held that minimum period of six months stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act) for a motion for passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is not mandatory and can be waived by courts depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit in an appeal against a judgment of the Delhi High Court. The question which arose for consideration before the Court was whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for passing decree of divorce on the basis of mutual consent is mandatory or can be relaxed in exceptional situations. In the instant case, the parties had sought waiver of the period of six months for the second motion on the ground that they were living separately for more than eight years and there is no possibility of their re-union. The parties moved the Supreme Court on the ground that only the Supreme Court can relax the six months period as per its earlier decisions. The Court considered the submissions of the parties and the Amicus Curiae brief background of the relevant provision – Section 13B(2). “Under the traditional Hindu Law, as it stood prior to the statutory law on the point, marriage is a sacrament and cannot be dissolved by consent. The Act enabled the court to dissolve marriage on statutory grounds. By way of amendment in the year 1976, the concept of divorce by mutual consent was introduced. However, Section 13B(2) contains a bar to divorce being granted before six months of time elapsing after filing of the divorce petition by mutual consent. The said period was laid down to enable the parties to have a rethink so that the court grants divorce by mutual consent only if there is no chance for reconciliation.” It said that the object of the provision is to enable the parties to dissolve a marriage by consent if the marriage has irretrievably broken down and to enable them to rehabilitate them as per the available options. It held that the cooling-off period prescribed by the provision was to safeguard against a hurried decision and was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage. “The amendment was inspired by the thought that forcible perpetuation of status of matrimony between unwilling partners did not serve any purpose. The object of the cooling off the period was to safeguard against a hurried decision if there was otherwise possibility of differences being reconciled. The object was not to perpetuate a purposeless marriage or to prolong the agony of the parties when there was no chance of reconciliation. Though every effort has to be made to save a marriage, if there are no chances of reunion and there are chances of fresh rehabilitation, the Court should not be powerless in enabling the parties to have a better option.” The Court then proceeded to consider whether the cooling-off period is mandatory or directory. It opined that in deciding the same, the language alone is not always decisive and that the Court should have the regard to the context, the subject matter and the object of the provision. It, therefore, proceeded to hold that the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory and held the following: “we are of the view that where the Court dealing with a matter is satisfied that a case is made out to waive the statutory period under Section 13B(2), it can do so after considering the following : i) the statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties is already over before the first motion itself; ii) all efforts for mediation/conciliation including efforts in terms of Order XXXIIA Rule 3 CPC/Section 23(2) of the Act/Section 9 of the Family Courts Act to reunite the parties have failed and there is no likelihood of success in that direction by any further efforts; iii) the parties have genuinely settled their differences including alimony, custody of child or any other pending issues between the parties; iv) the waiting period will only prolong their agony. The Court concluded that since the period mentioned in Section 13B(2) is not mandatory but directory, it will be open to the Court to exercise its discretion in the facts and circumstances of each case where there is no possibility of parties resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. Read the judgment below.

यदि कोई तथाकथित ऊंची जाति वाला किसी तथाकथित छोटी जाति वाले के यहां धोखे से कुछ खा पी लेता है