Quantcast

Sep 26 2013

How to Analyse Arguments From Analogy

Important!

“Analysing Arguments” is an ongoing series which analyses arguments found in daily life. Some good background material for this is Coursera’s enormously popular course Think Again: How to Reason and Argue, and the book Understanding Arguments: An Introduction to Informal Logic. You might also find the primer How to Argue Online useful. Other installments of the series are listed in the analysing arguments tag here and also on nirmukta.com.

An argument from analogy is similar to what we simply call an analogy, but is different in that it’s an argument, whereas an analogy is usually just a stating of a similarity. “Your driving is like Rahul Dravid’s batting” – that’s an analogy (and a compliment I once received!). It’s simply saying A is like B. But an argument from analogy – henceforth referred to as an “AFA” – is an inductive argument, which states the existence of a further similarity as its conclusion. It takes the following form:

1. Object A has property P (and possibly Q, R…).

2. Object B also has property P (and Q, R…).

3. Object B has property X.

——————————————————

4. Object A also has property X. (From 1-3.)

Here’s an example which some of us might have experienced. Say I’m up for a promotion at work, and I think I’ll be promoted, but I’m not. And then I find out that my colleague has been promoted. So I go to my boss and I argue for my promotion by saying:

“You promoted <colleague>, why didn’t you promote me?”

I’ll try to reconstruct this AFA in the above form. First, what are the two objects being compared? Easy enough – me and my colleague. I.e.,

A = me

B = colleague

Next, what are the common properties P, Q, R and so on? It’s implicit that there must be some similarities between my colleague and I, so let’s say we both joined around the same time, and have similar experience levels:

P = 5 years of relevant experience

Q = joined the company in 2009

Finally, X is the property of being promoted:

X = got promoted

So as you can now see, the conclusion “A also has property X” is “I should also be promoted”.

When is an Argument From Analogy Strong?

An AFA is stronger when it has the following attributes:

  • Many relevant similarities: the similarities P, Q, R… are relevant to X and many in number. The similarities I noted above are certainly relevant to the issue of promotion. But other similarities might not be relevant – e.g. if my colleague and I both have degrees in philosophy, but philosophy isn’t relevant to our job, then that similarity isn’t relevant to our promotion. But if my colleague and I both hit a particular sales target in the last quarter, and we both won a particular award… the more relevant similarities there are, the stronger the argument becomes.
  • Fewer relevant dissimilarities: there are fewer relevant dissimilarities between A and B. What if it turns out that my colleague passed a well-regarded industrial certification, and I hadn’t? Or received previously-unheard of praise from the customers? Or won major new business? Or hired and coached a brilliant team? If I have done none of these things, then these differences are relevant, and they would weaken my argument.
  • Diverse objects: there are other objects C, D, E… which also have similarities P, Q, R… and X. If I can identify three or four other colleagues who also share those similarities and got promoted, then my case for promotion becomes stronger.
  • Weaker conclusion: If instead of saying “You definitely should have promoted me”, I say “You probably should have promoted me”, the argument becomes stronger. Granted, in this particular example it wouldn’t make much sense, since promotion is a yes-or-no state. But in general, the principle holds – a weaker conclusion has more support from the premises of an AFA.

Here’s a real-life AFA from a few days ago – in a Wall Street Journal interview, the CEO of American financial services firm AIG said this while responding to criticism of AIG executives receiving bonuses despite the company being in bad shape:

The uproar over bonuses was intended to stir public anger, to get everybody out there with their pitch forks and their hangman nooses, and all that–sort of like what we did in the Deep South [decades ago]. And I think it was just as bad and just as wrong.

He later apologised (kind of). Most of us can instinctively make out what’s wrong with this argument, but it helps to break it down into the above form, to see just why it’s a weak argument:

A = executives of AIG who received bonuses

B = African-Americans in slavery/civil rights era

P = demonised by media and public opinion

X = ought to be left in peace.

The argument appears to point out an additional similarity by use of the phrases pitchforks and hangman’s nooses, but for one object (A) these phrases are rhetorical, but for the second (B) they are literal (an equivocation fallacy perhaps?). So we’re left with that one similarity P, of questionable relevance, and of course there are a host of relevant dissimilarities between A and B. As a result, this is a very weak argument from analogy.

A more detailed and academic look at AFAs can be found at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. I plan to continue with the same subject next time, where I’ll look at arguments from analogy which routinely show up in the act of victim-blaming.

 

Sep 23 2013

An Example Of Getting It Right

A friend of mine told me about this new American TV Series ‘Ironside’ that has just started. I haven’t seen it yet so this isn’t a commentary post on the show. If in case you have, do share your views.

The plot looks interesting. An investigator who is a wheelchair user. And its nice to see a black man lead. Knowing about this show reminded me of a recently watched but not-so-recent film named ‘The Bone Collector’. It stars a black quadriplegic homicide detective, Lincoln Rhyme (Denzel Washington) and a white female patrol cop, Amelia Donaghy (Angelina Jolie). Here are a couple of things about the film that stood out and made it really worthwhile..

1. Black men as protagonists itself are not that usual, but a disabled black man? Only once I’ve seen that.

2. It was ‘HIS’ story. I’m not saying that simply having a disabled character means it should be all about them. But since he’s the lead here. And what’s impressive is that it was done properly. He wasn’t this inspiration porn trope where he ‘overcomes’ his disability by doing ‘amazing’ things or is simply there as some sort of a lesson for non-disabled characters (and non-disabled viewers indirectly). He was lively, happy, sad, angry, funny, etc and doing what he had to do. Neither were the disability-related hurdles he would naturally experience brushed aside. So as a character, he was complete.

3. Now usually what happens if there is a male disabled character is that the female gets portrayed as somehow double inferior than regular. I don’t know if I’m right, but I’ve felt this at times. It’s like their saying, ”See this guy is ‘disabled’. What woman would fall for him? Obviously a really “stupid” type!” That’s like hitting both of them (the man for his disability, and the woman for simply being female). I saw this movie in Malayalam just few days before seeing The Bone Collector (which could also be one of the reasons I immediately liked it). Same, main character is quad. But mainly there to ‘inspire’ others with his cheerfulness and happy-go-lucky attitude. Also it seemed like the writer made him disabled to get away with objectifying women. (”Because c’mon, poor disabled fellow, who cares if he’s sexist. He’s anyway not going to have a woman like him.”) Ugh! So this Rhyme-Amelia relationship was done well in that respect. It showed both their sides and their affection grew in the course of the film.

4. Bonus Point! Prominent and complex black character #2 – Thelma (Queen Latifah). Black and fat actually. And no, she wasn’t just sitting around eating or acting foolish. She was his nurse, a woman who was clever and resourceful.

5. The ending of the film was particularly good. When Richard Thompson, the killer, arrives at Rhyme’s house with the intention of killing him, Rhyme puts up a very practical fight and causes serious injury to his opponent. He wasn’t simply killed with no sign of resistence. Instead, he fought on until Amelia suddenly arrived at the apartment and shot Thompson down.

One minor complaint I had with the film was that initially Amelia had to be given directions for the even the most basic stuff like picking up some evidence on the crime scene (which one would think is lesson #1 in training academy for cops?) Guess they just wanted to show Rhyme’s character as ‘dynamic’ and ‘big bossy’ (as a man). That was unnecessary, but thankfully Amelia’s character evolved later on.

Being happy and having a positive attitude towards life is essential for anyone’s mental peace. No denying that. Likewise, demeaning and insulting words being thrown at disabled people is also no less of a reality. But what differentiates the portrayal of these from reinforcing negative attitudes is how they are responded to in the very same films. If the character, who is obviously living in an ableist environment, appears to be constantly happy and not showing any resentment towards the oppression they face, then it means the oppression is normalized, it’s no big deal. If hurtful and insulting dialogues are met with silent acceptance (or worse, laughter), then it’s just a big screen reminder (or celebration) of the actual prejudices that actually exist. So I think its important to show *some* of the marginalizations at least. Otherwise it becomes unrealistic. And unrelatable for the ‘real’ people with those disabilities. Which means, in reality, their stories are still waiting to be told.

Sep 20 2013

Social Capital and Cultural Capital

In April of this year, the results of the BBC’s 2011 Great British Class Survey were published (free PDF available here). It’s quite a landmark study – it’s the largest survey of social class ever conducted in the UK, and consisted of a web survey having 161,400 respondents, as well as a parallel national representative face-to-face survey having 1026 respondents. The summary of the findings is:

Using latent class analysis on these variables, we derive seven classes. We demonstrate the existence of an ‘elite’, whose wealth separates them from an established middle class, as well as a class of technical experts and a class of ‘new affluent’ workers. We also show that at the lower levels of the class structure, alongside an ageing traditional working class, there is a ‘precariat’ characterised by very low levels of capital, and a group of emergent service workers.

An important and interesting feature of the study was what they measured as an indicator of class. We’re used to thinking of class inequality in terms of income. But the study instead used a more modern approach, where they measured three different kinds of “capital”: economic capital, social capital and cultural capital:

[...] a new, multi-dimensional way of registering social class differentiation. A highly influential scheme is that developed by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1984), which argues that there are three different kinds of capital, each of which conveys certain advantages. He differentiates between (1) economic capital (wealth and income), (2) cultural capital (the ability to appreciate and engage with cultural goods, and credentials institutionalised through educational success), and (3) social capital (contacts and connections which allow people to draw on their social networks). Bourdieu’s point is that although these three capitals may overlap, they are also subtly different, and that it is possible to draw fine-grained distinctions between people with different stocks of each of the three capitals, to provide a much more complex model of social class than is currently used. This recognition that social class is a multi-dimensional construct indicates that classes are not merely economic phenomena but are also profoundly concerned with forms of social reproduction and cultural distinction.

Read the rest of this entry »

Sep 01 2013

“Race is Not Biology, Race is Sociology”

I’m currently reading the book “Americanah” by Nigerian novelist Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, and loving it.

"African Negro" - Popular Science Monthly - 'The Races of Mankind', July 1881

“African Negro” – Popular Science Monthly – ‘The Races of Mankind’, July 1881
(Image shows a portrait sketch of a young black man in a suit and tie. The journal identifies him as “Jacob Wainwright, Livingstone’s faithful boy”. Image in Public Domain; links to source.)

There’s a segment in the book where a fictional blog post by the main character talks about what “race” means in America, which I just had to transcribe so you can read it: Read the rest of this entry »

Aug 30 2013

In Defence of Rose Chasm (Michaela Cross)

A white woman from the University of Chicago recently published an account of her unfortunate encounters in India. She was sexually harassed and assaulted on several occasions. The story received widespread attention, and Rose Chasm had many sympathizers, but as all cases of sexual assault stories go, she also had to face severe negative backlash.

One might say that is to be expected, seeing as how sexual assault victims haven’t exactly had the kindest audience. However, what was surprising about the Rose Chasm case was that she faced severe backlash from women, who know perfectly well what it’s like to be at the receiving end of such abuse.

Let me start with this article written by Polly Hwang which says “People who generalize are evil”, thereby making… a generalization. In her article, she says:

Not to chastise Rose Chasm in anyway but she should not have been dancing in the Ganesha street festival known for its hordes of extremely drunk young men. She should not have stayed in cheap shady hostels in Goa which I’m sure had no positive online reviews. She should not be flipping fingers at locals and most importantly, she should have left after her first incident of sexual harassment, instead of staying for over 90 days and developing PTSD. I’m not victim shaming in any way, the pigs who tormented Rose Chasm take 100% of the blame. However as foreigners, it’s our responsibility to be aware of how to behave and live in the local culture.

That’s a whole bunch of “She should not have…” statements followed by a cautionary “I’m not victim shaming.” Did the definition of victim shaming change while I slept in a cryogenic chamber for about one thousand years? I don’t understand how telling someone what they shouldn’t have done, and including a clause about leaving a place after experiencing one instance of sexual assault so as to not “develop PTSD” is not textbook victim blaming. I live in India, I’m a victim of sexual assault and I’m quite sure I wouldn’t appreciate this “advice”. It is patronising, misleading, and misogynistic. There is nothing victims can do to “prevent” sexual assault. If Rose had stayed in a not-shady hotel instead of a “shady” one, there would be no telling if she would be safe. Out of the 244,270 reported sexual assault cases in 2012 in India, 98% pointed to trusted friends, family or acquaintances as the perpetrators of the crime. That’s a staggering statistic. So, what should Rose have done? Should she have never visited India? On one hand, Polly’s article makes the case against generalizing Indian men, and says:

By implying that every man she met in India is a pervert and by not giving any examples of good decent Indian men, she is indirectly stereotyping Indian men in a very harmful way.

And then she implies that Rose should not have stuck around. Great, then we could all gang up on her again and say she generalised from one bad experience and decided to not stay. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Should she have been clairvoyant and known she’d get PTSD? Also, why should anyone suffering from that wretched trauma-inducing medical nightmare have to go out of her way to make commendable statements about Indian men? It makes no sense. If I were suffering from PTSD, while writing about my experiences and battling my trigger-prone brain and depression, the last thing on my mind would be appending a statutory line about the goodness of the hearts of the scores of Indian men who really are nice people. It is not Rose’s responsibility to include a clause so as to not save all the men in my country from coming under bad light.

Polly wasn’t the only one. Here’s another such seemingly empathetic post from another woman called Dilshad Master. Dilshad says:

Getting out alone, on foot, would be equivalent to…well let’s say, you and your friends dancing at the Ganesh Chathurthi festival on the streets of Pune. What in the world were you thinking? Oh, hang on, you weren’t thinking.

Life pro-tip:  To express your sympathy/empathy for someone who was tortured in your home country, do not adopt a sarcastic tone that is condescending towards the victim.

She then goes on to say:

I’m not quite sure which “lovely hotel in Goa” you stayed in. Did anyone recommend it to you on Trip Advisor or perhaps your friends on Facebook? Did you actually go through the comments on either or did you click on reservation, letting price and availability be your only guide? You see, we wouldn’t do that In India, not anywhere in the world. And if we did (like I did in Chicago), then we’d do it fully aware of the consequences.

More condescension and perfect 20/20 hindsight introspection for a sexual assault victim. This poster really is asking if Rose took enough precautions, implying that if she didn’t, she should have and that it would have made her life easier.

Then there was another article published on the same iReport section of CNN as a response to Rose Chasm, written by “twoseat”. In it, she says:

I want to address the consequences that arise from writing that lends itself to careless generalizations. The problem that this article has is that it ends up blaming an entire population for the actions of some.

The problem that ^that article has is that the article it references, does not, in fact, blame an entire population for the actions of some. Rose Chasm never insinuated or stressed that Indian men are all horrible, raging beasts. She only recounted her painful experiences and yet, twoseat thinks it is Rose’s responsibility to “articulate both sides”.

And then there have been those countless posts that are quick to point out that sexual assault also happens in the USA. Just read the comments section on any of the aforementioned articles. How is it okay for people to think Rose Chasm was playing the blame game here? She did not intend to demonise India, so why are people asking her to reflect upon the problems within her own country? Does the fact that there’s sexual assault in the USA negate Indian problems? Does it make people feel any better to say, “Hey, we’re not the only ones who rape and plunder!”? I can’t think of any other reason than derailment.

Although all these articles were written in good faith, they are perfect examples of how good faith can pave the road to hell. A sexual assault victim should not have to listen to multivarious accounts of what she should or should not have done. She shouldn’t have to listen to “advice” masked as apologia. She shouldn’t have to be told that she wasn’t prepared “enough”. She shouldn’t have to be coerced into acknowledging all the kindness and beauty in the world when she is trying to recuperate from acute trauma.

In a lot of ways, articles from these women are reminiscent of some statements made by Indian “leaders” that essentially place the onus of safety onto victims. Statements that dissect every action of the victim in hindsight and provide no comfort except obligatory platitudes.

Candle-light marches, prayers, and aggression don’t mean anything if we aren’t willing to admit that India has a problem (which is also prevalent in the rest of the world, no doubt, but that’s hardly the point) which can only be solved by a conscious, collective effort not make the women more liable in “preventing” something that really isn’t in their control. This is a nation where one rape is reported every 20 minutes, and that’s not counting the unreported cases, and other forms of sexual assault.

Considering the fact that science has actually associated demure behaviour to be what most sexual assault perpetrators look for in a victim, we should question whether we’re putting women at significant risk by advocating modest clothing and submissive behaviour. We should acknowledge that by contributing to an already enormous narrative of teaching women to not “get raped” rather than teaching men (and in some cases, women) to not rape, we’re tip-toeing on a dangerously thin rope. We’re promoting rape culture that makes rapists feel at home, while making the victims feel guilty. We’re completely neglecting a victim’s state of mind while we chide her choices without understanding the “neurobiology of sexual assault” (here’s a transcript of that video) and how “secondary victimization” can further a person’s trauma.

We owe it to our sisters to educate ourselves about a persistent, ugly social evil and really empathize with their struggles.

TL;DR: Do not blame the victim. Be brilliant like these men in Bangalore who wore skirts in solidarity for women, thereby making a bold statement about clothing (or anything else) never being an “invitation” for sexual assault.

Aug 23 2013

Dr.Narendra Dabholkar – A Tribute

Cross posted from nirmukta.com

Image Courtesy: antisuperstition.org

Image Courtesy: antisuperstition.org

Dr.Narendra Dabholkar, a well known rationalist and anti-superstition activist from Maharashtra was shot dead in Pune on 20th August 2013. He was the Founder of the Maharashtra Andhashraddha Nirmoolan Samiti (Committee for Eradication of Superstition in Maharashtra). The Humanist community is shocked at this mindless violence. Narendra Dabholkar, a doctor by profession had dedicated his life to the cause of rationalism and humanism. He spearheaded several campaigns against superstitions and was involved in caste annihilation programmes. Narendra Dabholkar was campaigning to get an anti-superstition bill passed by the Maharashtra Government. A day after his death the Maharashtra state government cleared an Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Ordinance. The law seeks to make it punishable for self-styled godmen to prey on people by offering rituals, charms, magical cures and propagating black magic. He had made powerful enemies and had faced protests against his work.

Read the rest of this entry »

Aug 22 2013

A Documentary on Durga Vahini

Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) and its youth wing Bajrang Dal are Hindu extremist organizations which are usually at the forefront of spreading Hindutva by using violence and threats of it. They have been accused of forceful conversions, attacks against Christians, Muslims, intimidating people who celebrate Valentines Day and have been found guilty in a few instances like the 2008 attacks in Karnataka, and the conviction of Babu Bajrangi in the Naroda Patiya massacre case.

There’s a new documentary The World Before Her that takes a look at Durga Vahini, the women’s wing of VHP. Not many people outside of the Hindutva circles have had access to inner workings, so the documentary should prove to be an interesting watch. Nisha Pahuja, the maker, was interviewed here and at one point she says “You know, more than the physical training the girls at the Durga Vahini camp are given, it’s the brainwashing and the blood curdling chants they are taught that shocked and depressed me. On the bus ride they take en route to their parade, they learned a few phrases that I simply refused to include in the film. Those were the sorts of moments that were hugely trying for me and my crew as well”.

The documentary is available for order and will also premier on PBS on Sep 16. Apart from Durga Vahini, the documentary also looks at the fashion industry in India and draws a parallel as to how women are restricted into certain roles in the name of empowerment. Here are a few clips from the documentary:

Aug 20 2013

The (Non-existent) Right to Die in India

What I’d like to do with this post is explore the current legal position on the right to die in India and a little bit about why the issue is so controversial (biased, of course, to reflect personal opinion). To start out, the right to die as an absolute is not provided for under the Indian legal system. The right to life under our constitution does not expressly include the right to die, nor has it been interpreted to include the right to die, although an attempt was made to do so at one point of time by the Supreme Court in this case – the judgement was thereafter overruled in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab. The judgement in the former argued that “a person cannot be forced to enjoy right to life to his detriment, disadvantage or disliking”. In Gian Kaur, on the other hand, the Supreme Court ruled that suicide, as an unnatural termination of life was incompatible with the basic idea of the “right to life”. While the decision does contemplate the possibility of accelerating the death of a terminally ill patient, no substantial exception was carved out in the judgement to permit euthanasia under the Indian legal regime. Moreover, an attempt to commit suicide and abetment of such an attempt are both criminal acts under our penal code.

That being said, a little bit about euthanasia: euthanasia can be either active or

A euthanasia machine administers a lethal dose of drugs when a person answers "yes" to a series of questions on the lap-top screen. (Image links to source).

A euthanasia machine that administers a lethal dose of drugs when a person answers “yes” to a series of questions on a lap-top screen. (Image links to source).

passive, it can also be voluntary, involuntary or mandatory. Active euthanasia is when someone uses a lethal substance or active use of force to end the life of another or oneself. Passive euthanasia is where treatment is withheld from a terminally ill patient, thereby leading inevitably to the patient’s death. Voluntary euthanasia, as the name would suggest, involves euthanasia of a consenting person. Involuntary involves terminating the life of a person who is incapable of giving consent. Mandatory euthanasia involves termination of the life of a person who does not consent or whose consent has not been sought. Passive euthanasia is completely legal. I have the absolute right to refuse treatment for any medical condition and refuse to prolong my life if I so desire. Which takes us to the living wills question, but I’ll get to that in a bit.

While a substantial portion of the objections against euthanasia are based on religion, there are more secular arguments that find their way into the debate. One major argument is that of the slippery slope: Permitting voluntary and active euthanasia could easily lead us down the slippery slope of legalising involuntary and mandatory euthanasia as well. There are An oft cited example in support of this argument is Action T4- the euthanasia programme that was run in Nazi Germany under which those judged to be critically sick (this included mental and physical disabilities) were put to death in the eugenic hope of cleansing the citizenry (and future generations) of what were considered to be undesirable genetic flaws. Unfortunately for advocates of euthanasia today, this programme was based on ideas that slowly gathered momentum through the first half of the 20th century and eventually led down the slippery slope of mass killings under the head of euthanasia. There’s a paper dealing with this issue here for those who would like to read it. Indeed, these ideas of killing ‘useless eaters’ are not restricted to the last century but seem to have been retained in this century as well, with people being comfortable voicing (publicly in newspapers, no less) opinions that disabled children ought to be euthanised. The reality is that the slippery slope is a very real possibility. That not only holds true for places where euthanasia is legal, but with other countries as well – reports of deaths caused due to negligence of medical practitioners state that the negligence can be seen to be directly proportional to the extent of disability in the patient.

Another argument against euthanasia based on similar lines is the fact that most countries that permit voluntary active require a patient to be suffering from either a ‘terminal illness’ or an ‘incurable disability’ in addition to suffering unbearably and unrelievably for permitting active euthanasia. It has been argued that the inclusion of ‘incurable disability’ as a marker devalues the lives of people living with incurable disabilities by adjudging such lives as being “worthy of termination” and therefore, not worthy of being lived. This leads to the idea that disabilities and the lives of persons with disabilities are intrinsically undesirable, and less valuable than the lives of able bodied persons.The idea of promoting self-determination in cases of voluntary euthanasia due to severe disability has also been subject to substantial criticism, primarily from disability rights groups (further reading here). The social construct model of disability provides the explanation for this: that ableism (and the detrimental consequences of living in an overtly ableist world) is the primary reason for any disabled person to believe that life with disability is not worth living and therefore, determine that euthanasia is the solution. Further, since the legality of euthanasia (as seen in countries that permit it) is regulated to circumstances beyond the mere will of the persons seeking to terminate their lives, self determination is hardly an argument worth making: the regulations clearly indicate that other people ought not consider such a step, thereby imputing hat their lives are more “valuable”.

Moving on to the question of living wills: as mentioned earlier, every person has the right to refuse treatment of any kind. However, in the event of a person’s incapacity to communicate this to the medical care provider, there is no legal provision for a living will in India. Most states in the US, for instance, have a provision for living wills to be lodged with an online registry that keeps a database of these wills. Many people also appoint others to make their decisions for them in case of emergency. Medical practitioners are provided access to the living wills of their patients lodged in registries and are then legally bound to act in accordance with the patient’s express will. While a person is free to provide instructions for such an eventuality, the person will have to depend on the next of kin to uphold the patient’s wishes. Since there has been no authoritative legal source in India stating that living wills are binding, a living will may not actually work on its own. Ideally, the best way to ensure that your wishes are honoured is to let your next of kin and / or family know what you’d like done in such a situation, as long as you trust them enough to carry it out. When that isn’t possible, however, it may be possible to contract out the decision to a person you trust, an agency of sorts, and keep them as your emergency contact – though it’s still not certain to be enforceable, given the lack of legal clarity on the issue. While that’s far from being a comfortable solution, until lobbying pays off and a legislation is enacted on the subject, it’s the best we’ve got.

Aug 06 2013

Controversy Over Prevention of Caste Atrocities and Equality Act in the UK (Part 3)

(Previous parts: Part 1, Part 2.)

Now to protect their own fair skin (which they are really proud of), the AHO are suggesting that the government and the members of House of Lords themselves are being racist. They are claiming,

In April of this year there was no AHO but after Lord Harries and his racist colleagues publically(sic) denigrated our Community, discriminating against us in the most despicable manner, the British Hindu Community turned its attention to this task and the AHO was born…

It wouldn’t be surprising to observe how they want to distract the UK media’s attention from the real issue at hand. By suggesting that the members of House of Lords who included Caste in the Equality act, as committing racism and continuing a colonial legacy, they wish to hide centuries old barbaric traditions. Such is their brazenness.

The current population of those of exterior caste descent is said to be somewhere between 50,000[i] to 400,000[ii]. While the population of Hindus in England and Wales is more than 800,000 according to the 2011 census. Most of the migrants coming from India who now have settled down in western countries are obviously from upper castes as their socio-economic privilege accumulated in India over generations could afford them such a living. They have accumulated wealth and created social capital of their own to be able to keep the exterior castes socially excluded. Harassment in school, employment, provision of goods and services, and even religious places still continues. They are a minority among minority. The atrocities are being conducted for last few decades and such law cannot be delayed any further considering that even children of exterior caste descent are bullied in UK schools.

Read the rest of this entry »

Aug 05 2013

Controversy Over Prevention of Caste Atrocities and Equality Act in the UK (Part 2)

(Continued from Part 1. Link to Part 3.)

Now let us take a look at the newly formed ‘Alliance of Hindu Organisations’ (AHO). It was formed in April 2013, only when it seemed like the upper caste or savarnas will be facing the wrath of the law for continuing discrimination. The domain name of their website is, ironically, ‘my caste is hindu.org’. Can there be anything such as society made of only one caste? Caste as a division of labourers organized individuals in different groups and closed them through endogamy. Every caste was assigned different functions and occupations in village socio-economy. Every caste had to depend on the other. The AHO wants to hide this exact hideous reality that the UK Hindus are divided in many castes. Even the names of the groups which are part of AHO give away the fact that they are exclusive for certain castes. One simply can’t be a casteless Hindu. In urban India, when people introduce themselves to each other, they are curious to know the surname of a person. Just knowing the given name does not satisfy them. They want to figure out religion and caste through family name. Many times even by observing physical features, they assume caste  of a person. Fair skin is usually attached to being born in ‘pure’ upper caste, while having darker skin doesn’t hold any social status and is usually connected to being born in ‘unclean’ castes. It wouldn’t be surprising to find the migrants in UK following this tradition.

Read the rest of this entry »

Older posts «

» Newer posts