nvedwan
March 10th, 2004, 07:38 AM
In the discussions surrounding the issue of whether to allow non-hindu jats on jatland, a certain view of history has been presented relentlessly, which stands in stark opposition to modern, inclusive ethos that we normally subscribe, or at least aspire, to. The idea that Jats were once the ruling classes who then "fell from grace", degenerated, and so on, into their present pathetic state is often presented, and repeated ad nauseum, as some kind of cardinal truth. The corollary is that we have to recapture political power, subjugate other people, corner resources, and thereby recover our "lost glory". There are a number of serious problems--practical and moral-ethical--with this stark perspective. My plea to everyone is to use their critical faculties and be aware of the ramifications of this line that is being propagated on this website and elsewhere, often using time-tested propaganda techniques like endless repetition without caring for the context, increasing the decibel level without providing supporting (or sketchy) evidence, and in general assaulting our senses with a flood of so-called information.
The problems with the "fall from the heavens" type history of jats
1. Moral-Ethical-- What are we trying to acheive by constantly harping on the so-called "fall from glory" of jats? Do we want to establish a dictatorship of jats? When the world as a whole is moving in the direction of diminishing group identities, and when we all accept fundamental and bedrock democratic value of individual equality (one vote, for instance), isn't it really going backward to try to establish group domination? Remember we are not taking about a fair shake here, but domination (even global, or at least in India). By believing in and propagating these ideas, aren't we accepting some groups are better than others? What makes us think that the Whites/Americans wouldn't do that to us tomorrow? It is easy to recognize that these beliefs in group superiority are a recipe for a perpetual global warfare-- a dog eat dog/"jiski lathi uskee bhains" world which has no place for humanity, compassion and generosity for people, who are deemed different, "not us".
It is really strange that these ideas are coming from people who are living abroad, not in (real) jatland, wherever that is. Do we wish to be treated like second-class citizens in the countries that we have migrated to because we can easily be considered inferior since Europeans once ruled over us? I am sure most of us will reject this medieval mindset, which is basically contrary to modern system of rule of law and elementary humanism/insaniyat.
The whole idea of equality of people regarding their race, caste, and creed, which is a major acheivement of socio-political evolution over the last 200 years is being ignored in this monomania /obsession/ junoon about establishing jat supremacy? Are we also going to do away with our (Indian) constitution (On of whose main goals is the eradication of caste differences) in the process?. Do we want to live in a world where groups of people are engaged in this perpetual struggle for supremacy? Or that insaniyat dictates that we emphasize cooperation and commonalities between people regardless of their identity and origins and work for a more fair world, where human rights and dignity OF ALL are protected.
2. Practical probelms
There are serious problems with trying to define jats as the rulers, peasants, nomads/pastoralists or whatever. Jats are, and have been, all of them. To say that we are ruling-class material is to fall into the fallacy called "essentialism"- that the essence of jathood is being rulers, which is metaphysical, non-verifiable babble. Moreover, isn't it disrespectful to people who are doing a great job being farmers and whose children still manage to acheive high social positions based on their hard work (we have examples here on jatland)? Personally, there is more to celebrate in someone beating adversity and making it, than in simply having/inheriting wealth because of social/economic status. There is an even more fundamental problem,which has been highlighted by pur recent debates: who can be considered a jat? Do we have to have a consciousness of being jat to be called a jat or just being descended from jat ancestors hundreds of years ago enough? An even more vexing problem is what is the subjective meaning of jat: is it experienced as a "state of mind"(aggressive/non-aggressive,so even non-jats can discover the hidden jat inside them? therefore everyone becomes a jat then, or at least has the potential!), "lifestyle" (vegetarian/non-vegetarian, aryasamaji or otherwise), "blood" (what is that anyways? when we can't even define black and white races genetically),or socio-economic status (really real jats are rulers and rich people! farmers are simply a disgrace!)
Finally, I would want to request people who are pushing and endlessly repeating the message of "dominate" to do a little introspection/chintan. We live in an increasingly inter-connected and inter-dependent world where our well-being is often as dependent on people that we work and and associate with--most likely non-jats--as people who we are related to by bonds of caste and kinship. Let's have courage to care for, love and respect all of our friends and well-wishers. Let's preserve our identities, inculcate pride in our heritage, without nurturing these exclusivist, toxic and, ultimately counter-productive, ideas of domination. Let's have the courage and the foresight to see the world in non-zero sum ways where welfare of one community does not always have to be at the expense of others.
The problems with the "fall from the heavens" type history of jats
1. Moral-Ethical-- What are we trying to acheive by constantly harping on the so-called "fall from glory" of jats? Do we want to establish a dictatorship of jats? When the world as a whole is moving in the direction of diminishing group identities, and when we all accept fundamental and bedrock democratic value of individual equality (one vote, for instance), isn't it really going backward to try to establish group domination? Remember we are not taking about a fair shake here, but domination (even global, or at least in India). By believing in and propagating these ideas, aren't we accepting some groups are better than others? What makes us think that the Whites/Americans wouldn't do that to us tomorrow? It is easy to recognize that these beliefs in group superiority are a recipe for a perpetual global warfare-- a dog eat dog/"jiski lathi uskee bhains" world which has no place for humanity, compassion and generosity for people, who are deemed different, "not us".
It is really strange that these ideas are coming from people who are living abroad, not in (real) jatland, wherever that is. Do we wish to be treated like second-class citizens in the countries that we have migrated to because we can easily be considered inferior since Europeans once ruled over us? I am sure most of us will reject this medieval mindset, which is basically contrary to modern system of rule of law and elementary humanism/insaniyat.
The whole idea of equality of people regarding their race, caste, and creed, which is a major acheivement of socio-political evolution over the last 200 years is being ignored in this monomania /obsession/ junoon about establishing jat supremacy? Are we also going to do away with our (Indian) constitution (On of whose main goals is the eradication of caste differences) in the process?. Do we want to live in a world where groups of people are engaged in this perpetual struggle for supremacy? Or that insaniyat dictates that we emphasize cooperation and commonalities between people regardless of their identity and origins and work for a more fair world, where human rights and dignity OF ALL are protected.
2. Practical probelms
There are serious problems with trying to define jats as the rulers, peasants, nomads/pastoralists or whatever. Jats are, and have been, all of them. To say that we are ruling-class material is to fall into the fallacy called "essentialism"- that the essence of jathood is being rulers, which is metaphysical, non-verifiable babble. Moreover, isn't it disrespectful to people who are doing a great job being farmers and whose children still manage to acheive high social positions based on their hard work (we have examples here on jatland)? Personally, there is more to celebrate in someone beating adversity and making it, than in simply having/inheriting wealth because of social/economic status. There is an even more fundamental problem,which has been highlighted by pur recent debates: who can be considered a jat? Do we have to have a consciousness of being jat to be called a jat or just being descended from jat ancestors hundreds of years ago enough? An even more vexing problem is what is the subjective meaning of jat: is it experienced as a "state of mind"(aggressive/non-aggressive,so even non-jats can discover the hidden jat inside them? therefore everyone becomes a jat then, or at least has the potential!), "lifestyle" (vegetarian/non-vegetarian, aryasamaji or otherwise), "blood" (what is that anyways? when we can't even define black and white races genetically),or socio-economic status (really real jats are rulers and rich people! farmers are simply a disgrace!)
Finally, I would want to request people who are pushing and endlessly repeating the message of "dominate" to do a little introspection/chintan. We live in an increasingly inter-connected and inter-dependent world where our well-being is often as dependent on people that we work and and associate with--most likely non-jats--as people who we are related to by bonds of caste and kinship. Let's have courage to care for, love and respect all of our friends and well-wishers. Let's preserve our identities, inculcate pride in our heritage, without nurturing these exclusivist, toxic and, ultimately counter-productive, ideas of domination. Let's have the courage and the foresight to see the world in non-zero sum ways where welfare of one community does not always have to be at the expense of others.