This is 2019 and it is without doubt the middle of the era of a very distinct variety of identity politics. Given the global rise of identity politics with the right wing ideology deciding its flavor across countries, the world community is running out of exceptions where, thanks to sanity and lack of immunity to reason, the traditional broad-based inclusive politics largely aimed at a refined version of their respective democracies are trying to figure out where they went wrong.
It becomes absolutely imperative that we, at this point, gain a better understanding of the essence of identity politics so we can either learn if we have been fooled by a fake political propaganda or even better, decide based on facts, the best format of political movement to be directly or indirectly associated with, for the benefit of self and the rest of our fellow citizens in a democratic way forward. While we get to choose the direct involvement, we, as it turns out, have no means to control our indirect involvement in political movement, irrespective of what our attempts may be.
In this discussion, I would like to bring to your notice the key elements of identity that matters in comparison to a few popular identity formats that have been inundating our thought processes as a result of ongoing identity politics. Specifically I am going to investigate the tribe, clan and caste identities which, in my view, drive a large volume of ideologies pushing various elements of identity politics, polarizing us in the process.
In short, I am going to place in front of you what a real identity can comprise of and what the fake ones use. I will let you decide what you wish to consider and use for your decision making from there on. Topics such as identity politics are in essence very personal individual-driven travel, largely in solitary navigation mode, which forces me to let you figure your travel in your own terms. I am merely sharing my travel and the navigation methods and information I use. I am however, inclined to present some specific references from what I've read as part of this study so you can formulate your own opinion while traveling along with me.
The Case of Who
Identity politics driven by the right wing, by design, drives the concept of the prioritizing the concerns of specific citizen groups, basing the ideology on the argument that the specific group's concerns are the most deserving criteria for political organization and administration. In some cases it is a religion and in other something else such as race, tribe, clan, caste etc. (This set has many subsets)
When we remove the noise and details and go to the bottom of the pile, we are left with the identity of a social group who is in danger and whose welfare is purposely neglected to support the welfare of the rest of the population. Discussing the validity of this very topic is in its own right a separate discussion but we will stay true to the heading we have decided for this investigation.
It finally comes down to:
Who is it whose concerns have to be prioritized over those of the rest of the population? What identity elements together make up the definition of 'who'?
Needless to say at this juncture that the basis on which the 'who' is defined is the focus of our deep dive here.
The Basis for Who
Be it any, my limited reading suggests, to a great degree of confidence, that the identities across the board can be broadly categorized across Tribe, Clan and Caste identities. I realize that many anthropological studies do club 'caste' as a special kind of 'clan' identities. I wish to treat 'caste' as a standalone identity in spite of this owing to its strong relevance to Indian politics and especially its rising prominence since 2014.
My first step in this travel is to understand what these identity classifications mean. It would help if we take up these identity groupings and compare them with each other to get the necessary comprehensive understanding.
Barbara Miller, in her book Cultural Anthropology, presents the following view when defining the term Tribe:
"A tribe is a political group that comprises several bands or lineage groups, each with a similar language and lifestyle and each occupying a distinct territory."
Interesting to note that Barbara's definition, while trying to define the nomenclature of one collective entity, includes the element of diversity by using the phrase 'comprises several bands or lineage groups.' I am however strongly attracted to the phrases 'with a similar language' and 'occupying a distinct territory'. I take from this definition that language and (native) location play primary roles in defining the essence of the Tribe's identity.
Dr. Kumar, in his book, Anthropology: Social and Cultural, presents the following comparative definition:
"Clan has no definite topographical area when as members of a tribe generally live in a definite geographical location.
Clan has no definite language, the tribe has a common language.
Clan is a well organized group based on a mythical ancestor."
Dr. Kumar's view directly picks up what Barbara's view uses as essentials and explains that while a 'tribe' will have a common language and a definite geographical location, a 'clan' will have no definite location and language. This indicates that a clan identity relies on other possible attributes such as customs and practices which do not necessarily have a geographical restriction or root of any kind. I am quickly driven towards the examples of 'vegan' and 'gamer.' There are French vegans and gamers and so are Russian. As long as anyone follows the customs and practices of vegans and gamers, they can claim those identities irrespective what they speak natively and where they live. However, the next statement of Dr. Kumar which uses the phrase 'based on a mythical ancestor' raises a serious question on my acceptance of the vegan and gamer examples I agreed upon. I will hold on to the 'mythical ancestor' piece until I get enough information to use it for specific examples. May be there could be clans based on mythical ancestors as well which brings us to the point where we almost have to accept the possibility of diversity in the definition of the 'clan' identity. I however take with clarity that clans could be subset of tribes such that any tribe can comprise of one or more clans.
As for the language and geographical elements of the tribe identity, I am quickly taken to the definitions I am aware of as a Tamil. I have been taught about Mullai, Marutham, Kurinji, Neithal as the different categories of land where Tamils lived. Tamil, obviously is the language that connected the members of the tribe. I would allow the geography segmentation to be used for other regions as well but I am sure these geographies along with Tamil as the primary connecting language defines the Tamil identity. Dr. Kumar's views corroborates this definition so far.
While Dr. Kumar is very cautious in the amount of words he uses to define his views, he definitely presents his views comprehensively so as to eliminate ambiguity in interpretations. He further points at Dr. D.N. Majumdar's view that says:
"According to Dr. D.N. Majumdar, the tribe looks upon Hindu ritualism as foreign and extra-religious even though indulging in it and in the worship of gods and goddesses whereas in the caste these are necessary parts of religion. The tribes of Madhya Bharat which are called Hindu and Kshatriya tribes are better acquainted with their own 'Bonga' than with the Hindu gods."
Now that takes me by surprise as Dr. D.N. Majumdar uses a very relevant example to indicate the placement of religion within the definition of the tribe identity in comparison with the caste identity. From Dr. D.N. Majumdar's view, it is clear that, in India, people lived as tribes and they had religious worship as part of their lifestyle, except, it was something completely different from the 'Hindu' version of worship. It seems the tribes Dr. D.N. Majumdar refers to were associating themselves more closely to 'Bonga' than with the 'Hindu' gods. This clearly indicates that the said tribes already had the concept of 'Bonga' and the 'Hindu gods' reached them later. Worship and rituals aside, it is important to note that 'Hindu' ritualism wasn't necessarily the first one. Also, the tribes did not carry any identity element derived from the 'Hindu' gods which they have later been introduced to.
It is nothing but obvious to note that religion and worship, although prevalent with tribes, their 'tribe identity' did not include them as part of the basis. With more than one god to worship and multiple rituals to follow, they naturally had to be accommodated as part of the internalized 'clan' identities.
Dr. Kumar goes on to mention:
"Marriage within the clan is forbidden both in the tribe as well as in the caste."
This corroborates the earlier view that multiple gods and rituals render them relevant to their respective clan identities. I am however surprised at the fact that exogamy was part of the tradition directly impacting the tribe identity. In today's time with cross-cultural amalgamation via marriage being scorned upon in the name of purist cultural rhetoric, it begs to remind oneself that having to marry outside the social group was once a cultural practice. I wonder at what point in time we lost that element.
On a different yet relevant note, I wish to bring it to your attention that the moment worship and rituals came into the discussion, they came along with the mention of 'caste' identities.
When it comes to caste, Dr. Kumar's views are:
"There is a greater consciousness of differences in status and rank in the caste than in the tribe.
The caste is never a political association whereas the tribe is a political association."
In the above statements, Dr. Kumar is referring to something, which, if I am not wrong, has been completely forgotten by generations of our population including us for the most part. The idea that 'caste' identity comes along with status and rank differences is an easy to understand fact as it is prevalent in our society to this day. The history of social discrimination based on caste is a large volume of evidence for this. What raises the question is the next statement of Dr. Kumar which rejects 'caste' as the basis for political association. For decades, we have been used to caste based politics at all levels within India. What we have been missing all along is that, historically that wasn't the case and in fact it was the other way around. We used to have tribe identities as the basis for political association but over time, 'caste' identities which are mere subsets of the larger 'tribe' identities took over and we had no clue we have fallen for a carefully crafted political propaganda which aimed at dissolving our original tribe identities using caste and the associated religious clan identities. It does however call for some more facts to corroborate this interpretation. If, historically, we humans have used our 'tribe' identities to engage in political association, it naturally calls for further dive into the key social attribute that held us together with the shared understanding of our 'tribe' identities - our language.
Melville J. Herskovitz, in his book, The Science of Cultural Anthropology [Man and his Works] quotes L. Bloomfield:
"The speech-community Bloomfield holds, "is the most important kind of social group," since "all the so-called higher activities of man--our specifically human activities--spring from the close adjustment among individuals which we call society, and this adjustment, in turn, is based upon language."
The usage of 'speech-community' clearly indicates the importance social and cultural anthropologists historically gave to the first comprehensive social attribute that united humans - their respective languages. Verbal communication and the need for a social group to follow the same collectively was and is the key element to establish the 'tribe' identity. Based on what L. Bloomfield had noted, the concept of society is based on language!!! Not worship, not gods, not rituals, not customs but language!!!
Melville goes on to say:
"There can be special-interest groups, based on class or occupation, as well as represent geographic differences."
This is where, in spite of Melville not being from India, acknowledges a common trait of social groups, segmentation of the group based on class or occupation along with geographic differences. However, what catches my attention is his specific use of the phrase 'special-interest groups' upfront while defining the same. This corroborates the earlier 'tribe' identity definitions by Dr. Kumar. Now it stands well corroborated that the 'tribe' identity is primarily based on the language spoken by the respective social group and any other 'clan' identity based on class or occupation is merely an overlay not diminishing the 'tribe' identity in any way.
Melville doesn't stop there. He attempts to draw us close to establishing the basis of understanding the complex entity of culture by saying:
"In addition, the symbolic values of language lead to a comprehension of the least tangible elements in any body of custom--the values, the goals, the ideals that direct conduct and order convention--while at the same time they reveal some of the deepest roots of culture itself. It is, in truth, symbolism of this order that justify us in regarding language as "an index of culture," as it has been termed; in thinking of it, in the widest sense, as the vehicle of custom."
The phrases 'language as an index of culture' and 'as the vehicle of custom' drive home the point we now have standing well corroborated by the findings of anthropologists across timelines and cultures. While other anthropologists treat customs as a rather distant trait, Melville clearly attributes custom to be an integral part of the definition of a culture. Melville does not leave language and he indicates that it has to be the vehicle of custom. So much diverse and non-stationary across the timelines and cultures and still anthropologists manage to establish the same definition for the 'tribe' identity and the basis for defining 'culture'. The connecting element across these views is nothing but language and speech being the prominent mode of communication serves as the element uniting social groups of humans into their respective 'tribe' identities. Speech is definitely the first mode of communication we evolved but over time we must have realized we needed to communicate with people far away from us or just not with us while we are expressing our view. This is when we might have started to code our speech and the other modes of communication might have evolved. I would however rely on the expert's view in this regard while holding onto my crude hypothesis.
Melville, in his discussion of language serving as the index of culture cites 'Ancient Society' by Morgan, L.H. stating that Morgan classified human socio-cultural development across three broad periods namely Savagery, Barbarism and Civilization. Melville goes on to indicate that Morgan had split these 3 principal periods into 7 periods which are:
1. Older Period of Savagery
2. Middle Period of Savagery
3. Later Period of Savagery
4. Older Period of Barbarism
5. Middle Period of Barbarism
6. Later Period of Barbarism
7. Status of Civilization, From the Invention of a Phonetic Alphabet, with the use of writing, to the present time
While letting savagery and barbarism go, although it seems we are approaching those very same periods, I am more attracted at this point in time towards the 7th and final segment of socio-cultural development that Morgan had conceptualized. Morgan considers a change from one period of socio-cultural development to another and the key differentiating feature he uses is - the invention of a phonetic alphabet!!! He adds to it the phrase 'with the use of writing'!!!
One social group inventing its own means to code its language and being able to communicate via writing is considered to have moved on from Barbarism to Civilization. Please note the importance given to the cultural aspect of 'writing' which is a distinct part of communication directly relying on the connecting medium across the respective tribe - ITS LANGUAGE!!!
I believe it is now safe to assume we have established the case for the basis for 'who.' The tribe identity stands primary with it relying heavily on the language of the social group apart from the geography inhabited by the social group. While there can be overlaying 'clan' and 'caste' identities, they do not or at least based on the above mentioned references to the findings of anthropologists, have never been historically associated with political association.
The Need of the Hour
Fast forward to now and what we have is an entire commercial market selling politics packaging it in many versions of 'clan' and 'caste' identities!!! We humans have enjoyed our civilizations' evolution so much that we were able to afford to ignore the very basis of how we got together and remained together - using our language as the primary basis. Every political party either boasts of its alignment with a specific caste group or has institutionalized caste based division within its hierarchy ensuring the permanent play of the 'caste' identities gently dissolving our original basis of identity - our language!
The right wing propaganda has historically been misleading us in the name of religion and caste and all of their political rhetoric has always been built on caste and clan identities consolidated into a common identity much more insignificant - the majority religion. It is a deliberate fallacy of colossal nature and it stands invalid on two basic counts, one, it uses the means of worship as the common identity and two, the mere number of people clubbed into it. This deliberate disregard for the important aspects of the people's real cultural identity clearly indicates that the said right wing propaganda based on religion is nothing but a empty means of vote bank consolidation. However, it needs to be noted that the right wing propaganda using religion and caste does use the linguistic element to drum up support by using the literary dialect it created during the times of monarchy - Sanskrit.
A.M. Tripathi in his book ANTHROPOLOGY, presents a discussion titled 'Sanskritization' where he cites the work of Srinivas:
"The term 'Sanskritization' used by Srinivas in his study on Coorgs was primarily meant to describe the process of cultural mobility in the traditional rural India. For instance, a low caste or tribe or any other group may give up non-vegetarianism, consumption of liquor, animal sacrifice, etc. and imitate Brahmin's life style in matters of food, dress and rituals. By following such a process, within a generation or two, they may claim a higher position in the local caste hierarchy."
Have you ever heard of any format of conversion involving a linguistic basis?
Does the very idea of converting someone from one way of life to another seem logical?
The very fact that conversion of social groups to follow the customs of a 'clan' identity indicates that the source of this identity, its proponents and preachers cannot be native to the land wherever the said 'Sanskritization' might have taken place. The discussion proceeds to say that by following such conversion to a new way of life, the 'converts' can 'claim a higher position in the local caste hierarchy'!!!!!
This is nothing but one overlaying clan identity forcing a social group to give up their respective tribe identities to convert to new way of life just so they can claim a new rank in the caste hierarchy, which again is a secondary overlay identity similar to any other clan identity prevalent at that time. The fact of this needs some time to sink in to actually make sense.
Why weren't there a tribe of people who spoke Sanskrit belonging to a specific geography who had a special set of customs?
Why would those who created Sanskrit ever have a need to 'Sanskritize' the members of other social groups who might have their own original tribe identities uniting them by their language??!!
Why on earth must any social group convert from its original identity to a new identity, sacrificing its original tribe identity to pick up a new and foreign 'clan' identity (including the caste identity)??!!
This clearly indicates that Sanskrit, if not anything, was a literary dialect, constructed for the purpose of propaganda literature and to act as means of 'court language' so whatever the kings did or had done, got documented in that language, disregarding the kings' own native language!! The fact that the monarchs fell for this trick indicates the real level of intellect they operated with!!!
Look closely at what A.M Tripathi indicates about the objective of 'Sanskritization.' His using the phrase 'the process of cultural mobility' clearly refers to the underlying understanding of the fact that the Sanskrit based culture is being perceived as superior to others. However, there is no reference as to what makes Sanskrit based culture a superior one. It goes on to refer to 'give up non-vegetarianism' which is directly contradicting the very lifestyles of those who ended up Sanskritized! It goes on to use the 'brahmin' identity as the reference for imitation but cleverly presents an opportunity to claim higher rank in the local caste hierarchy.
Firstly, the 'brahmin' identity has nothing to do vegetarianism. I personally know brahmins who eat all meat including beef. I know brahmins who eat meat but not beef. I know brahmins who eat egg but no meat. I also know brahmins who are vegetarians. This 'vegetarian brahmin' is a popular identity that is not true across all brahmins. Even if we take Sanskrit literature such as Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, there is a specific prescription of rice and clarified butter along with BULL MEAT for couples who intend to have a male child. Before you fall for yet another right wing trick which uses western translation as a means to disregard all commentary as fake, I would promptly point you towards the translation done by Swami Nikhilananda. Food habits and determining the gender of the child are very different entities with no relation whatsoever but such a prescription is being presented via Sanskrit literature. Sanskritization cannot and should not be used or even considered as means of any format of social mobility as there is no inherent need for any tribe identity to go through such 'CHANGE OF NAME' and 'CHANGE OF WAY OF LIFE'. Sanskritization, as referred to by A.M. Tripathi, refers to local caste hierarchy which in my view is a clever play by Sanskritization, away from the core connecting essence of the social groups subject to such conversion - its native language. However, it now demands we look at the other overlay identity namely the 'caste' identity.
Under the discussion titled 'Caste', A.M. Tripathi's findings say:
"Caste is the root base of Indian social system. The term caste has been derived from the Portuguese word 'casta', meaning race, lineage or pure stock, which is in turn derived from Latin castus, meaning clean, pure or pious. It has been coined to refer to the traditional Hindu-based system of social organization in and around India. Thus 'caste' refers to the basic idea or notion or ideology of social stratification in Indian society."
Firstly, the country called India by itself is a very new entity. A basis for its social system has to be the original tribe identities. However. A.M. Tripathi presents 'caste' as the root base of Indian social system. In today's time, there are people who identify themselves as Telugu speaking Chettiyar and then there are Tamil speaking Chettiyars. Telugu and Tamil are languages while Chettiyar refers to a caste. When Languages came first and formed the basis for the first and basic tribe identities, how come 'caste' even be a consideration for a definition of core identity? When multiple tribe identities take up common 'caste' groups, is it not obvious that 'caste' is nothing but an additional overlay that had happened over time owing to some motives only best known to those who propagated the 'caste' identities? Whatever be those motives, it is very clear that 'caste' was, is and will never be the root base of any social system. Caste is merely a overlay identity superior to a non-detailed 'clan' identity (such as vegan/gamer) but inferior to the original 'tribe' identity that social groups evolved by means of uniting through their respective native languages.
A.M. Tripathi doesn't stop there. He goes onto dive into the etymology of the word 'caste' and says the word caste is derived from Portuguese word 'casta' which in turn is derived from Latin 'castus'. He does acknowledge the fact that the word 'has been coined' to refer to traditional Hindu-based system of social organization.
Did the native speakers of English coin the word 'caste'?
If not, why on earth will anyone else take the right to infiltrate English, the Queen's language, with nonsense of their own?
If the 'Hindu-based system' was indeed very old, why does it need a English word to refer to its creation of social segmentation?
If Portuguese and Latin languages are required to help the Hindu-based system's creation, how come the Hindu-based system alone stand as something from around here? What is a system which cannot stand by itself using its own terms?
Have you ever heard of something inherent to the Marathi system driving the coining of an English word to refer to itself? If it is really Marathi, it will have its own Marathi term for it.
Remember, one would not confuse the words the British government coined to help its administration with the above questions. What the British did was a result of their inability to learn the local languages. The Sanskrit, hindu-based system using Portuguese and Latin languages to coin 'caste' is very different. It is time to remind you that the moment you confront the right wing with this question, they will gently throw the blame on the westerners and say it is them who did everything.
I am Tamil and so for the purpose of this discussion, I would like to refer to some aspects of Tamil in this regard. We have ancient Tamil literature dating before the days of modern religions where the literature did not even cover the terms 'god' and 'religion'!! We do have literature that got composed under the patronage of Kings after the creation of religions which have references to worship methods and in some cases even the characters that are being believed to be gods in today's time. Across these Tamil literature spanning thousands of years on either side of 'creation of religions', there is no mention of the term 'Hindu' anywhere. The term 'Hindu' is foreign to us Tamils. The Tamil population had and has its own versions of worship theories and customs and it varies from district to district. These are however the 'clan' identities we acquired over time on top of our original tribe identity - TAMIL OR TAMILAN/TAMILACHI, as we proudly call ourselves in our native language Tamil!!
Getting back to the discussion, if you are Marathi or Gujarathi or anyone in any corner of this world, ask yourself what language you speak natively and refer to history of that language and the culture of the people who spoke the language and if possible read the literature composed in that native language of yours. Be very careful about the time when the literature you read was composed. If you pick something from 3 years ago, it might not serve as the right evidence for your quest for establishing the essence of your original identity. pick up literature from different times and then try placing the views and interpret the motive behind the content and you will see what YOUR ORIGINAL TRIBE was indeed busy with, prior to its Sanskritization!!!
You carry a native tribe identity that your native language has bestowed upon you and if you look up the history it will also point you towards a specific geography where you came from. We live in modern times and so we are in a much evolved times which means so many factors have driven us to migrate across geographies. Jobs taking us to big cities from villages is one easy example of such relocation. In spite of relocation, your ORIGINAL TRIBE IDENTITY ingrained in you by your native language never leaves you.
Have you ever heard of a Malayalee who is a Gujarathi?
Have you ever heard of a Bengali who is a Kannadiga?
A Malayalee is someone who speaks Malayalam natively. A Malayalee might relocate to Gujarat and learn Gujarati but he still remains a Malayalee. A Gujarathi is one who speaks Gujarathi natively.
However, we know there are Tamil speaking Brahmins, Hindi speaking Brahmins, Odiya speaking Brahmins and many other groups of Brahmins who speak many different languages natively. The language they speak is the basis for their ORIGINAL TRIBE IDENTITY while 'Brahmin' remains a CLAN IDENTITY they have acquired from elsewhere! Replace Brahmin with any other CASTE identity and the argument remains the same. The 'caste' identities are something we acquired from outside owing to many reasons, of which, the primary being subjected to the creation, implementation and consolidation of various faith systems. Some might say religion has nothing to do with caste. Have you ever heard of a traditional hindu with no caste ever? Is a hindu possible without a caste identity? Why do you think conversion to hinduism is considered nearly impossible. If a French individual coverts to hinduism, what caste will you put him/her under? Please note, the caste identities are a consequence of institutionalized implementation of organized religion. Our country was not the only one to fall victim for such a political propaganda. However, when I remove the names and look deep inside, what I observe is a form of large scale 'social nurture' process. It is now important to cover that to make sure we get the 'social nurture' in the right perspective.
Rediscovering Socialisation
C.N. Shankar Rao, in his book, SOCIOLOGY: Principles of Sociology with an Introduction to Sociological Thought, discusses the concept of 'Socialisation' classifying it across 4 segments, out of which two are or prime importance that I would to bring to your attention.
C.N. Shankar Rao, while discussing 'Anticipatory Socialisation', referring to Merton, says:
"Men not only learn the culture of the group of which they are immediate members. They may also learn the culture of groups to which they do not belong. Such a process where men socialise themselves into the culture of a group with the anticipation of joining that group, is referred to by sociologists like Merton as'anticipatory socialisation.'
This is clearly corroborating the 'Sanskritization' discussed by A.M. Tripathi. What A.M. Tripathi describes an example of anticipatory socialisation that C.N. Shankar Rao refers to. When humans learn the culture of groups they do not belong to with the expectation of joining those groups, they subject themselves to a form of socialisation. This is how we humans acquired our respective clusters of 'clan' identities, one specific kind being the 'caste' identity!! When we try to emulate a vegan lifestyle, we expect to become a vegan and when we try to emulate a gamer lifestyle, we expect to become a gamer. Similarly, as A.M. Tripathi very efficiently explains, when we try to emulate the 'Brahmin life style' we, over a few generations, become eligible to claim a higher status within the local caste hierarchies. If, the concept of anticipatory socialisation is fully accepted and implemented, the entire population can emulate the Brahmin lifestyle and become Brahmin and there will not be a caste based differentiation. However, such a possibility is distinctly avoided, the reasons of which, are best known to those who conceptualized what A.M. Tripathi cites Srinivas to be referring to as 'Sankritization'!!!
C.N. Shankar Rao proceeds further to define the concept of 'Re-socialisation' where he says:
"Not only do individuals change roles within groups, but they also change membership-groups. In some instances, 'resocialisation'-"the stripping away of learned patterns and substitution of new ones for them"-must occur. Such re-socialisation takes place mostly when a social role is drastically changed."
One social group dropping one identity and picking another seems a bit sudden and drastic in nature but such is C.N. Shankar Rao's definition. The phrase 'stripping away of learned patterns' indicates the potential non-voluntary aspect of this kind of socialisation. His subsequent use of the phrase 'social role is drastically changed' corroborates the involuntary nature of the said socialisation.
I would present the history of caste groups in India being classified as 'Criminal Tribes'. The 'Criminal Tribes' law remained in effect for about 80 years which essentially branded large number of people as 'thieves/robbers/dacoits' by profession/ancestry. This was in response to some of the people belonging to those caste groups not responding positively to severe legal punishments for their acts of theft/robbery/dacoity. Just because there was a rise in the number of repeat offenders immune to the impact of imprisonment, those in power stripped their respective caste groups of their 'civilian' role and substituted it with a criminal-martial role, essentially victimizing large number of people who had nothing to do with the said repeat offenders.
However, I would point at the distinct nature of such re-socialisation involving involuntary, drastic change in a social role, that this entire game of picking an existing identity and replacing it with another identity, was nothing but a game stuck inside the insignificant bubble of CLAN IDENTITIES!!! The original tribe identities of those caste groups was, is and will forever remain the same!!
So, over and over again, many game layers of political propaganda bestowed upon us multiple clusters of 'clan' identities apart from the 'clan' identities we picked up on our own. All this, while grossly ignoring our ORIGINAL TRIBE IDENTITY as established by our respective native languages, something which historically has been the basis for political association until we lost the cultural war to the region-agnostic 'clan' identities which are not necessarily native to ours. We stand today, segmented across by means of a complex mesh of 'clan' identities which we believe is the essence of our original social identity. We also stand under-informed on the basis of the social groupings that mean sense and are stuck with titles made up in thin air.
What We Really Are and What Really Matters
C.N. Shankar Rao, cites Harry M. Johnson while quoting his definition of social group:
"A social group is a system of social interaction."
C.N. Shankar Rao also cites Marshall Jones while quoting his definition of social group:
"Two or more people between whom there is an established pattern of interaction."
Both Harry and Marshall's definitions pivot the concept of social group on the term 'interaction'. There are so many ways two humans can interact and at the most basic levels of interaction lies communication, the basis of which is what we started this investigation with - the language! Both Harry and Marshall refer to social interaction as the means to establishing the very definition of that interaction to be classified into a 'social group.' Social groups can be defined in one way but do have many other aspects that enable their identity and classification as a social group.
C.N. Shankar Rao, while discussing the characteristics of social groups, says:
"Social interaction is the very basis of group life. Here mere collection of individuals does not make a group. The members must have interaction. A social group, is in fact a system of social interaction. The limits of social groups are marked by the limits of social interaction."
Social interaction, as per C.N. Shankar Rao, is the fundamental need for a collection of individuals to be called as a social group. He goes on to say that the limits of social interaction defines the limits of social groups. Given today's atmosphere of identity politics, we are observing a rise in fear, anger, contempt and greed owing to which we are allowing ourselves to take extreme ends of political spectrum fearing and hating each other. The basis of all the fear and hatred however seems to be religion and caste both of which are mere 'clan' identities that came after us from places not necessarily ours. Political propaganda during the times of monarchy spread these trivial 'clan' identities and drove us to ignore, refuse and eventually forget our original tribe identities! We are not what we assume to be our primary social groupings if we are not referring to our original tribe identities based on our native language. We need to revisit the basis on which we identity ourselves and gain clarity of the identity-cluster we carry on us as of today. When we strip down all the acquired, trivial 'clan' identities, what we will be left with is our ORIGINAL TRIBE IDENTITY ingrained by our native language.
I speak Tamil natively and this means I am a Tamilan whether I agree or not. Any other identity is something I can choose to accept or deny, irrespective of which, those identities will remain as mere 'CLAN' identities. My ORIGINAL TRIBE IDENTITY is Tamilan and there is no other way of looking at it.
If I have to consider any form of logical political association via relevant social grouping, I am, clearing the cluster of my acquired 'clan' identities, left with my Tamilan identity associating me with my TAMIL population (my original tribe!).
I do acknowledge that the very concept of picking a relevant identity for political association comes after accepting the fact that I am human, belonging to a larger community of humans at a global level. There is also no denying of the fact that all humans are equal!!!
As for political association, especially with respect to placing myself in this very dense forest of identity politics artificially constructed by the right wing propaganda, as someone left out of equality at the national and social level, I choose to stick with the one original identity I carry - Tamilan. I am not Tamilan because I think or want to be one. I am Tamilan because I am one and that is not my choice. I refuse to use every other identity I picked up either by choice or chance as that is not what I primarily am.
I am quite clear as to what my original tribe identity is and should I ever conceptualize any form of political association and participation in that regard, all I will ever use is my Tamil identity. Everything else can remain as they really are - the insignificant social bling.
It is about time I have to ask:
Is it anyway logical/rational/sensible/fair to engage in political association using the non-permanent, acquired 'clan' identities?
How and when did we stop engaging in political association using our original 'tribe' identities as the basis and have fallen victims to the organized marketing campaign based on 'clan' identities?
Why is it that we are not given the opportunity to decide if we can revise our political orientation based on what really matters and is original?
Why are we not evaluating our political beliefs and orientations?
Are we afraid about facing the facts that might categorize our long-held views and beliefs incorrect and misinformed?
Do we realize we are forced to take sides within a carefully crafted story filled with characters?
Do we know that we are being polarized using our acquired identities, most of which were thrust on us via long-term re-socialisation?
Isn't it time, we decided we have to realize what our real identities are before responding to any political movement we are exposed to?
Is it anyway logical/rational/sensible/fair to engage in political association using the non-permanent, acquired 'clan' identities?
How and when did we stop engaging in political association using our original 'tribe' identities as the basis and have fallen victims to the organized marketing campaign based on 'clan' identities?
Why is it that we are not given the opportunity to decide if we can revise our political orientation based on what really matters and is original?
Why are we not evaluating our political beliefs and orientations?
Are we afraid about facing the facts that might categorize our long-held views and beliefs incorrect and misinformed?
Do we realize we are forced to take sides within a carefully crafted story filled with characters?
Do we know that we are being polarized using our acquired identities, most of which were thrust on us via long-term re-socialisation?
Isn't it time, we decided we have to realize what our real identities are before responding to any political movement we are exposed to?
Do you know who you are?
The current trend of identity politics warrants the follow up question:
Do you know who you really are??!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References:
Cultural Anthropology
Author: Barbara Miller
Publisher: PHI Learning Private Limited
Original Publisher: Pearson Prentice Hall
SOCIOLOGY: Principles of Sociology with an Introduction to Sociological Thought
Authors: C.N. Shankar Rao
Publisher: S Chand and Company Limited
ISBN: 9788121910361
ANTHROPOLOGY
Author: A.M. Tripathi
Publisher: Danika Publishing Company
ISBN: 9788189301378
The Science of Cultural Anthropology [Man and his Works]
Author: Melville J. Herskovits
Publisher: Surjeet Publications
First Published by: Alfred A.Knopf, New York, USA
Anthropology: Social and Cultural
Author: Dr. Kumar
Publisher: Lakshmi Narain Agarwal
