రేరాజుకు ఆహ్వానం

వినండి...ఆ తరువాత చర్చించుకుందాం ! :)

Get this widget | Track details | eSnips Social DNA

డిజిటల్ సినిమా - తెలుగు సినిమా

కోట్లు పెట్టి సినిమా తీసేవాడికి డిజిటల్ ఎందుకు? డిజిటల్ లో తీసి ఎక్కడా రిలీజ్ చేసుకోలేనోడికి సినిమా ఎందుకు? ఇది ప్రస్తుత తెలుగు పరిశ్రమ పరిస్థితి. అది మరో పది సంవత్సరాల్లో అస్సలు మారదు. మాహాఅయితే ఫిల్మ్ లో తీసిన సినిమాల్ని అన్ని థియేటర్లలో డిజిటల్లో ప్రదర్శిస్తారు. అంతే!

స్టార్ (నటుడు/నిర్మాత/దర్శకుడు) సినిమా లేనిదే తెలుగు ప్రేక్షకుడు థియేటర్ కి రాడు. పెద్ద సినిమాల్నే సగం మంది పైరేటెడ్ డివిడి దొరుకుతుందిలే అని రావటం లేదు, ఇక చిన్న సినిమా రేపోమాపో టివిలో వచ్చేస్తుందో లేక “దాన్ని కూడా చూడాలంటావా!” అనే ఆటిట్యూడ్ తో చూడ్డం మానేశారు. ఇక డిజిటల్ సినిమా ఎందుకు చూశారు?

అయినా డిజిటల్ అనేది టెక్నాలజీ దానితో కంటెంట్ మారదు. విధానం మారదు. పరిస్థితి అస్సలు మారదు. ఐతే ఒకటి మాత్రం జరుగుతుంది, సినిమా తియ్యాలనుకునే ప్రతొక్కడూ ఈ టెక్నాలజీని ఉపయోగించి ఒక సినిమా తీసేస్తాడు. ఆ తరువాత వాళ్ళలో 99% మంది వాళ్ళకు సినిమా తియ్యడం రాదని తెలుసుకుంటారు

భగవంతుల బజారు

ప్రపంచీకరణ, ప్రైవెటీకరణ నేపధ్యంలో హఠాత్తుగా పరిణమించిన హిందుత్వవాదం తన సహజపరిణామంలో అయితే ప్రపంచీకరణకి వ్యతిరేకంగా స్వదేశీ బాటపట్టాలి. ప్రపంచీకరణ రుచి మరగక ముందు  హిందుత్వవాద రాజకీయాలు "స్వదేశీ" మంత్రం జపించినా, ఆ తరువాత మహత్తరమైన ప్రపంచీకరణ మూసల్ని ఇండియా షైనింగ్ నినాదంతో స్థిరపరిచే ప్రయత్నం చేశాయి. నిజానికి ఇదొక విపరీతపరిణామం. కానీ ఆ విపరీత పరిణామానికి ఒక క్యాలిక్యులేటెడ్ డిజైన్ ఉందంటుంది రచయిత ‘మీరా నందా’ తన పుస్తకం THE GOD MARKET లో.

ప్రపంచంలో పరమ క్యాపిటలిస్టు మతం ఏదైనా ఉందంటే అది నిస్సందేహంగా హిందూమతమే అందుకే “Globalization has been good to the Gods in India”  అనేది ఈ పుస్తక సారాంశం. ముఖ్యంగా, పెరుగుతున్న మధ్యతరగతి సైజుతో పాటూ వారిలోని హిందుత్వభావజాలం ఎలా...ఎందుకు ప్రభావితం అవుతోంది అనే ప్రశ్నలకు సమాధానం ఈ పుస్తకం. మతం- మధ్యతరగతి- మార్కెట్ ఎలా పెనవేసుకుపోయి తమ డిజైన్ ని అమలు పరుస్తున్నాయో చదివించే విధంగా చెప్పిన పుస్తకం ఇది.
 

“Whereas the ‘religions of the book’, that is, Islam and Christianity, bind the faithful by demanding obedience to the letter and the spirit of their revealed dogmas, Hinduism deploys familiar rituals, festivals, myths and observances- the kind of things children learn on their mothers’ knees- to knit a many-stranded rope that binds the faithful to the faith with so many little ties, at so many different points that one loses sight of the ideological indoctrination that is going on. Ordinary worshipers and the three partners described above- the state, the temples, and the corporate or business interests- perform a choreographed dance, as it were, in which each element merges into another smoothly and effortlessly. The net result is a new kind of political and nationalistic Hinduism which is invented out of old customs and traditions that people are fond of, and familiar with.”

తప్పకుండా చదవాల్సిన పుస్తకం.

****

లార్డ్ మెకాలేకి జై !!

The vilification of Lord Macaulay: will capitalism suffer the same fate? - Chandra Bhan Prasad

By most accounts, all Indians now regard democracy as the ideal political system for India, but I would like to argue that that consensus is not quite valid, especially when it comes to challenging the caste order.
The large majority of politicians, political theorists as well as the general public often speak of an Indian way of democracy as distinct from Western democracy, but this thinking has an undercurrent of contempt against the entire Western value system.

That ultimately leads us to being, or believing in being, Indian in terms of a collective ethos and value system. We therefore fall into a category that I describe as the Indian Social Order, one that puts us in sharp conflict with not only western democracy, but also with modernity, and finally with capitalism as a social order.
Often, outside our control, our Indian-ness takes us closer to using caste order as a positive point of reference because the Indian Social Order is infused with the spirit of the caste order.
Within ourselves, a fight erupts between caste and modernity, graduating into a conflict between the modern notion of nationhood and the caste order.

This state of consciousness forces us - the mainstream India(n) - to choose caste over the Indian nation if there was a choice to make. However, this part of consciousness remains unstated, officially unclaimed, but erupts through other channels of conflict.

India at this point of history is in a terrible state of self-conflict: its caste order and the Indian 'nation' are at war. India is still undecided as how far to embrace its nationhood. Since the nation is still not the first choice for most people, any thing hurting the caste order is facing resistance - be it capitalism or mechanization.
Capitalism, for example, is not only about monetary transactions and profit; it is also a social order. For the Indian nation, industrialization is a necessity, but it cannot be independent of capitalism, which as a social order has the innate capacity to replace the caste order.

Given its capacity to destroy caste, all symbols of modernity and capitalism are under attack in India. There is a positive side though. The anti-casteism forces are gaining ground and that is why the conflict exists. Earlier, the caste order had a free run, as is exemplified by the case of how the Indian nation has demonized and marginalized Lord Macaulay.

For instance, if one was to ask any mainstream Indian a simple question 'Given a choice between shooting at a portrait of Sir Robert Clive and Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, which would you choose?' the answer is most likely to be the latter.

The question, therefore, arises: Why do mainstream Indians hate Lord Macaulay more than Sir Robert? After all, Sir Robert won an empire for Britain and India became a colony.
In sharp contrast, Lord Macaulay was virtually an Indian nationalist. Deploy all the historians of the world and scan all history pages of India to find out who the first used the word 'independence' for India.


  It would be, on the most selfish view of the case, far better for us that the people of India were well governed and independent of us, than ill governed and subject to us; that they were ruled by their own kings, but wearing our broadcloth, and working with our cutlery, than that they were performing their salams to English collectors and English magistrates, but were too ignorant to value, or too poor to buy, English manufactures. To trade with civilised men is infinitely more profitable than to govern savages.  
Those are the exact words spoken by Lord Macaulay in his Government of India Speech on July 10, 1833 in the British House of Commons.

Who was the first person to find native Indians worth holding public offices under British rule?
 
We are told that the time can never come when the natives of India can be admitted to high civil and military office. We are told that this is the condition on which we hold our power. We are told that we are bound to confer on our subjects every benefit - which they are capable of enjoying? No; which it is in our power to confer on them? No; but which we can confer on them without hazard to the perpetuity of our own domination. Against that proposition I solemnly protest as inconsistent alike with sound policy and sound morality.  

Lord Macaulay again, in the same speech.
If reason was to regulate conscience, India should have accorded honorary citizenship to Lord Macaulay posthumously. Instead, we pull out Lord Macaulay’s Minutes on Education to show that he was a mind-enslaver."...Thomas Babington Macaulay, the founder of the colonial system of training loyal local clerks," wrote the fairly talented Indian traditionalist Praful Bidwai in a December 2006 column in the Khaleej Times.

And let’s look at what are children taught in India’s schools.
"We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour but English in taste, in opinion, in morals and in intellect," Macaulay is quoted as by eminent historian Prof. Bipan Chandra for a nationally standardized (by NCERT) history textbook for schools.

What are college and university students taught in India? Here is what Prof. Sumit Sarkar quotes Macaulay as saying in his Modern India: "English educated intelligentsia - brown in colour but white in thought and taste."
All most all Indian history books remember him as wanting to turn Indians into intellectual slaves of the British Empire. The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh even disparages all English-speaking Indians as the 'children of Macaulay'.

Was Lord Macaulay aiming to achieve what Indians accuse him of? Here's what actually says in his Minutes on Education.

In point, I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed to. I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population.  
Shouldn't we question why the initial and final lines are taken out while representing Lord Macaulay’s view? Is it because the former speak of the context, the lack of infrastructure, and the latter of the intent, to let Indians themselves modernize their curricula?

There is more. 'Macaulay was contemptuous toward Indian genius', they will say and reproduce the following Macaulay quote: 'A single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.'

If the above quote is stripped from its context, Lord Macaulay would indeed look partisan, even racist. But look what he says about his own country in the same Minutes.

The first instance, to which I refer, is the great revival of letters among the Western nations at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth century. At that time almost everything that was worth reading was contained in the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Had our ancestors acted as the Committee of Public Instruction has hitherto acted; had they neglected the language of Cicero and Tacitus; had they confined their attention to the old dialects of our own island; had they printed nothing and taught nothing at the universities but Chronicles in Anglo-Saxon, and Romances in Norman-French, would England have been what she now is? What the Greek and Latin were to the contemporaries of More and Ascham, our tongue is to the people of India.  
That's Lord Macaulay about his own country, about his own language, about his own history. How does he then become a colonizer of minds?!

As matter of fact, Lord Macaulay was fighting a grim battle with the Orientalists who saw everything Indian as virtuous - from its indigenous system of education to the caste system. As an Abolitionist himself, Lord Macaulay feared an enduring dependence of India on Britain and argued for modernity, democracy and the sciences for India.

So why is he is hated more than Sir Robert Clive? Let us return to Lord Macaulay himself for the answer.
"Or, to go to India itself for an instance, though I fully believe that a mild penal code is better than a severe penal code, the worst of all systems was surely that of having a mild code for the Brahmins, who sprang from the head of the Creator, while there was a severe code for the Sudras, who sprang from his feet. India has suffered enough already from the distinction of castes, and from the deeply rooted prejudices which that distinction has engendered. God forbid that we should inflict on her the curse of a new caste, that we should send her a new breed of Brahmins, authorised to treat all the native population as Parias," he argued in his speech to Parliament.

"I allude to that wise, that benevolent, that noble clause which enacts that no native of our Indian empire, by reason of his colour, his descent, or his religion, be incapable of holding office," he adds.
Taking Hindu religiosity to task, Lord Macaulay wrote the following in his Minutes:
   
We are to teach false History, false Astronomy, false Medicine, because we find them in company with a false religion. ....And while we act thus, can we reasonably and decently bribe men out of the revenues of the state to waste their youth in learning how they are to purify themselves after touching an ass, or what text of the Vedas they are to repeat to expiate the crime of killing a goat?

We are a Board for wasting public money, for printing books which are of less value than the paper on which they are printed was while it was blank; for giving artificial encouragement to absurd history, absurd metaphysics, absurd physics, absurd theology.  
Remember, Lord Macaulay scripted the Indian Penal Code which made all Indians equal before the law. While Sir Robert conquered India, he didn't question its caste order, among other things. Lord Macaulay, on the other hand, promoted India’s interests but questioned many practices, including the caste order.
Mainstream Indians, therefore, don't forgive Lord Macaulay. It is testament to the lasting and unforgiving legacy of caste that, from Lord Buddha to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, all those who questioned it were despised and discarded. Buddhism virtually disappeared from India, and Dr. Ambedkar lost elections despite having been the key architect of independent India's Constitution.

The same can be said to be true of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay. Meanwhile, it remains to be seen if capitalism as a social order can overcome that which individuals and socio-political and religious movements could not conquer.

Chandra Bhan Prasad is a visiting scholar for the fall semester 2007 at the Center for the Advanced Study of India. He is one of India’s leading Dalit thinkers and the only Dalit to have a weekly column in a national English daily newspaper, The Pioneer. His story and writings can be seen at www.chandrabhanprasad.com.

*****

దళితుల ఇంగ్లిషీకరణ

"The idea is to make English a matter of faith among Dalits because we believe it is an empowering language. If a Dalit woman starts worshipping English as a goddess, there is no way her kids would escape the 'ABC' from their childhood,"- Chandra Bhan Prasad

****

దళితులు హిందూమతాన్ని ఎందుకు ద్వేషిస్తారు?

ఈ వ్యాసం/ పుస్తిక 2004 లో ప్రచురింపబడింది. కాబట్టి ప్రస్తుతం ఉన్న పరిస్థితులకు, కొత్తగా వచ్చిన మార్పులను ప్రతిఫలించకపోయినా, మూలసిద్ధాంతాన్ని మాత్రం చాలా బలంగా వినిపిస్తుంది. ఇందులో కులహిందువులకు అంగీకరించడానికి ఏమీ ఉండవు. కానీ దళితుల మైండ్ సెట్ ఇలా ఉండటానికి గల "నైతిక కోపం- Ethical anger" అర్థమయ్యే అవకాశం మాత్రం ఉంది.

WHY DALITS HATE HINDUISM?

FOREWORD
This is a short introduction to Western people, mostly Christians, interested in India and particularly the Dalits. Since they are always guided by India's ruling upper castes, who have been always very close to the West, they often get misled because of the plethora of contradictions that make the confusion worse confounded.
The Hindu ethos is guided by hate. And that is why the Hindus hate anything which is not Hindu. Muslims, Christians and Sikhs have become the first targets of their hate philosophy, converting India into one of the most violent countries in the world. They talk non-violence but practice the worst kind of violence against Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Dalits and also all women.

But the puzzle is it is these very Hindus—not even 15% of India's population— who are the closest to the West. They have made America their second if not first home. Entire Western benefits are sucked away by these people who are the very oppressors of Dalits and other non-Hindus.

They exploit the Western sincere benefactors, mislead them and at the same time oppress the Dalits and non-Hindus inside India. And to mislead the Western do-gooders they resort to deception without ever making the innocent Westerners aware of their cunning tricks.

Western people interested in India should note that there is no other country in the whole world with such a plethora of perplexing problems. That is why they very often get deceived by the Hindu propaganda. India has not only the class problem but the more serious caste problem which has no parallel in the world. Besides. It is also the original home of racism.

The triple problem of class, caste and racism are further complicated by the nationality question. India is not a nation but a country of several hundreds of nations. The Hindus effectively make use of these complex contradictions and rule this country hiding all the reigning chaos and confusion with the power of their monopoly media.

Such a unique, well-oiled machinery of exploitation is over 3,000 years old. No group has succeeded in operating such a machine for so long anywhere in the world. Why only in India? Why our Western benefactors are not trying to understand this question?

Christian missionaries to some extent at least understood the baffling complexity of India. But the Muslims, even though mostly converts from the indigenous Indians, are yet to understand these complexities.
This booklet introduces India to such Western scholars, aid-givers, missionaries and all those sincerely interested in the liberation of the Dalit — the Black Untouchables of India.

Bangalore V.T. Rajshekar
Date: Aug.15, 2004

Hinduism vs. the Movement of Untouchables

1. Introduction:

We are thankful to the Christian Conference of Asia for having given us an opportunity to present the case of the Dalit, the Black Untouchables of India forming over 20% its 1,000 million population. (V.T. Rajshekar, Dalit — The Black Untouchables of India, Clarity Press, USA, 1987). Christians have rendered such a signal service to the liberation of Untouchables that it can be written only in letters of gold when we rewrite the Indian history. Once kept out of Brahminism, now called Hinduism, as outcastes, the Untouchables of India today present the world's cruelest form of Apartheid before which the South African racial segregation and other Black problems of US and UK pale into insignificance. But, alas, the Indian Apartheid has received hardly any world attention as India's Brahminical ruling class has kept it a closely guarded secret.

Boneless wonder

If the Untouchables are what they are today, it is only because of Hindu religion, which, they say, is followed by about 85% of the Indian population. The correct name of Hinduism is Brahminism, imported to India by the Aryan invaders. Hinduism, considered the world's most ancient religion, has no parallel in the world.
A bundle of contradictions, a boneless wonder, words such as Hinduism, Hindu or Hindustan not at all figure in the Sanskrit "sacred scriptures" of Hindus. These scriptures do not even give a name to this religion. It has no founder. It has no single god. It has neither a church nor one single text like the Bible or Quran. The Supreme Court of India has ruled that Hinduism is not a religion but a way of life.

The question: "Who is a Hindu?" can be answered only in the negative: one who is not a Muslim, Christian or a Parsi is a Hindu. Its priests are unique in the world. They not only belong to one caste (Brahmin) but are a hereditary pest. At least 95% of the Hindus do not know their "holy books". A majority of them do not even regularly visit temples. At least 30% of the Hindus are not admitted into Hindu temples.

Caste rivalry among Hindu gods

Therefore, Hinduism cannot be defined except that we can identify that a Hindu is one who is by birth. The Hindu is one who is not a Muslim or Christian,. That means Hinduism can be defined only negatively. Caste system, of which untouchability is a part, is the foundation on which Hinduism is built. You remove caste, the Hindu edifice falls like a house of cards. So every Hindu must have a caste. Without a caste there can be no Hindu. Nay, caste system is the other name for Hinduism. Caste and untouchability are deathless because they have divine sanction. Even the Hindu gods belong to different castes. And one god fights with another god because of caste rivalry.

Hinduism is, therefore, a vast mad house. Nay, the maddest house in the whole world. India, because of this, has become a sick country and its sickness is affecting the health of other countries. Look at Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia, UK, USA, Canada, etc. True, Hinduism is actually practiced only by the Brahmins who form the apex of the caste pyramid. They form not even 5% of the Hindu population and yet as "gods of earth" they control everything — all the property and privileges. And, therefore, rightly constitute India's ruling class, supplying every Prime Minister that India had (barring three or four for a very brief period) since "independence". None can rule India except the Brahmin. This is the power that Hinduism has conferred on the Brahmin, who is called the Bhoodevata, god on earth.

Brahmins killed Budhism

 Hinduism is so powerful that though an alien religion,being an Aryan import, it devoured every protest movement including the most liberating Budhism, which was destroyed and driven out of India over 2,000 years back. Brahmins led by the Adi Shankara literally slaughtered Budhists. Budhism today reigns in other parts of the world but not to be found inside India – except for a feeble attempt made by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Saviour of the Untouchables and the new rising star of India, at the fag end of his life by himself embracing Budhism along with several millions of Untouchables.

Efforts are being made to strengthen Hinduism —claiming it to be a religion of over 85% of Indians — and the government itself is actively helping the process making the Christians and Muslims nervous and making them feel that the Government in India is pro-Hindu. A fundamentalist Hindu nazi party called the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) is vigorously at it by fanning communal flames and periodically resorting to torture of Untouchables, Tribals, Muslims and Christians. The ultimate aim of the RSS is to clamp a class-caste fascist dictatorship, before which the Hitler's nazi rule will pale into insignificance, crush the Untouchables and castrate the minorities.

2. Untouchables & Tribals, original inhabitants of India:
Untouchables and Tribals who together make a formidable third of India's population are the original inhabitants of this ancient country. But the invading Aryans drove them out and those who fled to hills and forests became Tribals and those driven out of village limits became Untouchables.

The stigma of untouchability (racism) is not confined to Untouchables alone. In fact one caste is untouchable to the other "Hindu" caste. Ascending order of reverence and descending degree of contempt. But what are called as Harijan — meaning the "children of god" in the words of M.K. Gandhi— suffer not merely from untouchability but unapproachability, unseeability, unspeakability, etc. Dogs and cats are let inside a Hindu house but not an Untouchable.
 
Therefore, every village in India has become a ghetto, which is the worst part reserved for these born bonded slaves, reduced to skeletons, who are expected to render free service to the Hindus without expecting any return. They do all the menial jobs: cleaning, sweeping, scavenging, agricultural operations, carrying dead cattle and eating its carcass. Building constructions. Every dirty job. While the men are Untouchables, the women can be enjoyed by the upper caste (Hindu) men. This is the concept of Hindu justice.

No place for democracy under Hinduism
Democracy and social justice have no place under Hinduism. But the country's Constitution has forced the government to introduce some "socialist reforms". But with the advent of liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation, even these concessions and reservations are disappearing. So we live under such serious contradictions and perpetual clash between the fascist ideology of Hinduism and the socialist slogans of the government forced by the country's Constitution prepared by Dr. Ambedkar. The Constitution has given the Untouchables some paper "reservations" in jobs etc. but privatisation has killed even this little mercy.

Untouchability (sanctified racism) among Hindus is thus a unique phenomenon unknown to humanity in any other part of the world. Nothing like it is to be found in any other society —primitive, ancient or modern. Sociologists and historians of India are not interested in the problems of Untouchables because they all belong to the upper caste. Nay. You will be laughed at and ostracised if you talk about it publicly.

3. Why beef-eating Brahmins became vegetarians:
The first organised protest movement against Brahminism was launched by the Budha and Untouchables joined it en masse. Dr. Ambedkar has discovered that before the Aryans invaded India, the language of India was Tamil. He said the war between Budhism and Brahminism and the defeat of the former resulted in its followers being driven out of the village limits. Brahmins, who were the deadliest enemies of Budhism, adopted the trick of sabotaging Budhism by infiltrating it. They conducted a war against Budhism both from without and within. And after vanquishing Budhism, they inflicted untouchability upon those defeated.

Another ingenious method the Brahmins adopted to destroy Budhism was to give up beef-eating and become strict vegetarians. The Brahmins were the most gluttonous beef-eaters and the Vedic texts have any number of references to their indiscriminate killing of cows and eating them. Killing brought them joy. In fact, cow was then reserved for the Brahmin stomach.

The Brahmins also excelled in drinking intoxicating liquor, sex and such other merry-making. When the Brahmins gave up eating beef other Hindus also followed them. If the non-Brahmins underwent one revolution by giving up beef-eating, Brahmins underwent a double revolution. They gave up meat-eating for the first time and became vegetarians.

To my mind, it was the strategy which made the Brahmins give up beef-eating and start worshipping the cow. The clue to the worship of cow is to be found in the struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism and the means adopted by Brahminism to establish its supremacy over Buddhism". (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Untouchables, W&S Vol. 7 p. 345).

Why the Brahmins resorted such a reckless adventure, a supreme sacrifice of giving up their greatest pleasure in life? Dr. Ambedkar says:
" Without becoming vegetarians, the Brahmins could not have recovered the ground they had lost in its revival, namely Buddhism". (Ibid p. 346).

Jews of India
Brahmins — whom we have described as the "Jews of India" (V.T. Rajshekar: Brahminism, DSA-2002)— have beaten the Jews in craftiness, deceit and treachery. They wanted to beat extremism with extremism. It is a fantastic strategy. The only way to beat Budhism was to go one step forward and become vegetarians.
Today, Brahmins (barring those in Kashmir and Bengal) are vegetarians and non-drinkers, though the yuppies among Brahmins have once again started meat-eating and drinking.

Non-violence was absorbed into Brahminism which from the day of the defeat of Budhism went on changing its name and recently it came to be called Hinduism. The Vedic religion of Brahminism was sacrificed to save Brahmins and destroy the revolutionary philosophy of Budhism and thus permanently condemn India to slavery and serfdom. That is how India, which has the world's largest but the most famished cattle population, turned into a cow-worshipper as a result of the triumph of Brahminism over Budhism. It was a means adopted by Brahmins to regain their lost glory. This supreme sacrifice of the Brahmins proves that the "Jews of India" are prepared to go to any extreme and make any compromise to save Brahminism.

To them Brahminism became more important than India. Every foreign invader was invited by them to serve their selfish ends. India today is one of the poorest countries of the world, a sick nation, because of Brahminism. (V.T. Rajshekar: India as a Failed State, DSA-2004). Not only if the Untouchables are to be saved but if India itself has to be rescued, Brahminism will have to be destroyed. That is why the Untouchables, being the original owners of India, have decided to escape from the tyranny of Brahminism.

4. India is not a "nation"
The Hindu nazi terrorists now led by the RSS often boast about the "Indian nationalism" or "cultural nationalism". They are spending a lot of money and time to rouse this "national patriotism" among Hindus. But is India a "nation"?

Each religion — Muslims, Christians, Sikhs and Hindus — constitutes a different but perpetually warring nation. Muslims (15%) and Christians (3%) are being persecuted by the Hindu "majority". Apart from this, the Untouchables (20%) and Tribals (10%) each constitute a separation "nation". Sikhs are rightly demanding a separate nation — Khalistan. Linguistically, geographically and ethnically India is deeply divided. Besides, each caste is a separate "nation" within the so-called Hinduism. (V.T. Rajshekar: Caste — A Nation Within the Nation, Books for Change, Bangalore, 2004-reprint).

Hinduism is thus a vast prison-house of warring nationalities. Nationality is a social feeling. It is a longing not to belong to any other group. This is the essence of what is called a nationality and national feeling. But in India race, language and country do not suffice to create a nation. A nation is a living soul, a spiritual principle.
Suffering in common is a greater bond of union than joy. As regards national memories, mournings are worth more than triumphs, for they impose duties, they demand common effort". (Renan quoted by Dr. Ambedkar in his book, Thoughts on Pakistan, Thacker & Co., 2nd edition -1945, p.17).

As consciousness increases along with literacy and other factors, Muslims, Christians and each caste within Hinduism will clamour for separateness and some people expect India to be torn to pieces in course of time.
The Hindu ethos stands for division and disintegration and not for unity. The seeds of destruction are within Hinduism itself. Nobody need destroy it. Hinduism will destroy itself. Because the Hindu house is built on hatred. The engine of hatred drives a Hindu.

5. Apartheid in India — a world problem:
The Untouchables of India constitute the worst form of Apartheid. The Afro-Americans are employed as household servants in White houses, and therefore, they are not Untouchables. But India's Untouchables are kept outside, segregated in all areas. Their very touch, look, even thought leads to pollution. You can make out a Black man from the colour of the skin but not so the Untouchable. He may be fairer than the Brahmin. Nobody can identify an Untouchable by the mere skin colour.

Therefore, the Indian Untouchability like the Black problem is not a problem arising out of colour prejudice. It is a mental problem created by the caste system. That makes it the most serious problem in the whole world. But, alas, no world body, the UN, International Court of Justice, Human Rights Commission or anybody for that matter, has ever bothered about the Untouchables who in sheer number excel the American Blacks or for that matter the Palestinians or any other struggling group.

For the first time India's Black Untouchables took their case to the UN at Durban (2001) comparing casteism with racism but suffered a defeat because of the Brahminical rulers stiff opposition.
Therefore, ours is a world problem of the greatest magnitude needing the highest priority.

The only people to spare some thought to the Indian Apartheid are the Christians. The World Council of Churches and the CCA have done a lot. And because of this they have invited the wrath of the Indian ruling class. If the Christians are interested in saving India and thereby the Untouchables they will have to intensify their efforts.


6. Class & caste: India's twin great divide:
While every other country in the world is divided into rich and poor (class division), India has not only its rich and poor but also the high and low castes. In India, the people are not only divided horizontally as rich and poor, but also vertically into high and low castes — one cutting across the other. That means the Brahmin belonging to the "highest caste" may be sometimes poor but an Untouchable government official may be rich. This is the most baffling problem faced by no other country in the world.

If other countries have to destroy only the "class", we in India have the twin menace of "class" as well as the "caste". Since the loyalty of both the rich and the poor is first to their caste (nation), it is difficult to unite the poor of a caste against the rich of their own caste. The frequent "caste wars" in India have conclusively proved that "poor" Hindus will not join hands with Untouchables – who are economically the poorest and socially the lowest.

Therefore, India presents the world's most baffling paradox where no general mobilisation of the poor is possible.

Even Budhism, Christianity, Sikhism and Islam have not escaped caste division because originally they were also "Hindu".

Sociologists by and large endorse our opinion that in India "caste" is "class". A mobile caste is a class. The low castes are all poor and upper castes are generally the rich. But one thing can be said with confidence that in India it will not be possible to launch a "class struggle" without first destroying the caste. At least a simultaneous thrust: a "class-caste struggle" has to be launched.

The Indian marxist leadership did not agree with us and that is how the Untouchables of India have rejected marxism. (V.T. Rajshekar: How Marx Failed in Hindu India, DSA-1988).
" caste identity"

The Hindus are also not prepared to destroy their caste because they became rulers only because of their caste identity. Since Hinduism is the other name for caste system, any attack on caste means a direct assault on property and privileges that the caste brings. Since every caste and subcaste stands to benefit from this grand system, no Hindu is prepared to give up the caste.

The upper castes (Hindus) are making a lot of noise over the conversion of Untouchables to Islam or Christianity. To prevent conversion they give the false promise of destroying untouchability. Hindu leaders including M.K. Gandhi say that they want to "eradicate" untouchability. But nobody is complaining against the caste system. Because they know that untouchability being the foundation of caste system, it is not possible to remove untouchability alone without destroying the caste system, which in turn means destroying Hinduism. So when Gandhi and other Hindu leaders talk against untouchability, they are not sincere. Gandhi, whom Dr. Ambedkar described as a Hindu leader and the Enemy No.1 of Untouchables, wanted only a patchwork solution. Gandhi was content with reform but Dr. Ambedkar wanted revolution and asked Dalits to quit Hinduism and go in for conversion. Religious conversion has proved to be the best, surest and the most nonviolent way of liberating the Untouchables. (DV Jan.1, 2003 p. 20: "Conversion as the best, simplest, surest & the most nonviolent way to liberate Dalits").

7. Marxists betray revolution:
India being one of the poorest countries in the world, all the factors necessary for revolution exist here. But the country is nowhere near a revolution. This is because the marxist leadership is in the hands of the Brahmins who are not really ready to launch a struggle to destroy caste as it will effect the property and privileges of their caste. And without destroying the caste, it is not possible to destroy the class. They are not prepared to combine caste struggle with class struggle. That is why the Untouchables have rejected marxism.
The Untouchables and Tribals are born revolutionaries. Nobody wants revolution more urgently than these two sections. But the marxists have no programme to attract them. The Left parties do not inspire these revolutionary sections. And quite a number of them feel that the marxists in India are not only far from revolution but actually counter-revolutionary.

8. Religious revolution:

As the marxists have betrayed revolution, Untouchables are forced to take the only other path available — the religious solution. Thousands of Untouchables and Tribals, therefore, embraced Christianity. Sikhism, Budhism and Islam and the flow is increasing.

It must be noted that the Untouchables of India are subjected to torture not because they are poor. There are any number of poor in India and the Untouchables are not the only poor. They are only a part of the poor Indians. The country itself has over 50% living below the "poverty line".

But why Untouchables alone are subjected to torture? Not because of their poverty but their degrading social status. So the problem of exploitation and poverty in India is due to social causes and not economic factors.
The main cause of India's poverty is, therefore, social and next only economic. This has to be clearly understood. The Untouchables are kicked, killed, burnt, raped and their little property destroyed not because they are poor. Poverty is not their problem. They became poor because the Hindus robbed their human rights.

The social degradation of the Untouchables having had religious sanction under Hinduism, the Untouchables have no other go but to get out of this gas chamber of Hinduism and seek fresh air under other liberating religions: Christianity, Islam, Sikhism, Budhism etc. Therefore, conversion to other religions has become popular among the Untouchables. Not because after conversion to Christianity and Islam the problem of poverty would be solved. To them poverty is not their No.1 problem. Man cannot live by bread alone. He wants self-respect which is denied under Hinduism. They will get it the moment they get out of Hinduism and convert to other religions.

The Untouchables have discovered that conversion helps them as they will no longer be subjected to atrocities. Conversion to other religion, therefore, helps the Untouchables to destroy caste paving the way or rather helping them to go to the next phase: "class struggle".

Dr. Ambedkar chose Budhism after a 20-year-long thinking on the subject but unfortunately Budhism, having been considered a part of Hinduism, has proved to be ineffective in destroying untouchability because those who embraced Budhism along with Dr. Ambedkar are still treated as Untouchables by the Hindus. So the Untouchables mostly prefer Christianity and lately in one state, Tamil Nadu, the trend is towards Islam.

9. Role of Christians:

To repeat, the sickness of Hinduism is so contagious that it has not spared any other religion. Those who went over to Christianity carried their caste with them and we have evidence that to gain more members, the Church leaders allowed the converts to keep their caste identity. There are even today separate churches and graveyards in the church for Untouchable converts.

But one thing: Christianity or Islam does not have scriptural sanction for caste. Anybody fighting against caste within the church or Islam, will get support of their religion. But not so under Hinduism. That is why inside the Church in India, there is a powerful movement to fight caste discrimination. Despite the caste distinction the Untouchable converts to Christianity are today emotionally and psychologically much better than their counterparts who preferred to stay behind in Hinduism.

The trend towards Islam in Tamil Nadu, the southernmost state of India, is a new development that has rattled the Hindu clergy. Even the government has expressed alarm and there are fresh moves to ban conversions and stop the flow of foreign funds to India. There are charges that Arab countries are financing the conversion drive but government investigation did not prove it. It is only a few thousand Untouchables who embraced Islam in Tamil Nadu.

Mass conversion to Islam is not new to this area but the upper castes (Hindus) and the Hindu nazi terrorist party, RSS, are worried about this trend because a Hindu considers Islam as the most inveterate enemy of Brahminism. Islam has no caste distinction. The Untouchables are attracted to this because of its egalitarianism. Even some Christian converts have opted to Islam.

10. Hinduism is anti-human:

The above account is sufficient to convince anybody that Hinduism is not only anti-democratic but anti-human. Even the Brahmins, the custodians of Hinduism, have not benefited materially from this suffocating religion. Hundreds of Brahmins have fled the "holy" India and settled in beef-eating "unholy" US, UK and Gulf countries. Quite a number of them are still complaining of their own poverty in India.

Foreigners are likely to be deceived by the propaganda of nonviolence, the Gandhian ahimsa. But as representatives of the Untouchables, we would like to blast this myth. Nowhere in the world we can get a set of people who are more violent and blood-thirsty than the Hindus.

Hinduism is no doubt dying. Christianity and Islam have a better future in India. Urbanisation and scientific development have set fire to the very citadel of Brahminism. But what keeps the dying Hinduism alive are the two main props: caste system and the karma theory — the belief in rebirth, predestiny.

The Hindus talk about democracy and socialism but "majority rule" in India has resulted in majority tyranny on the minorities who are reduced to the level of second-rate citizens — a persecuted minority. India will soon plunge into a bloody communal and caste war.

Christianity has helped millions of Untouchables to get liberation. The Tribals of the North-Eastern India are today a force to be reckoned with because of Christianity. All those who went over to Christianity are definitely better off than those who stuck to Hinduism. If Christianity has to attract more followers, it has to immediately set its house in order by getting rid of the caste within the church as far as possible. Secondly, it has to render all-out help to Untouchables and Tribals.

11. Solution:

The Untouchables of India are so weak —socially, economically, culturally, politically and even physically — that they no longer have the patience to wait for a revolution, which has proved elusive. Therefore, instead of waiting endlessly for the revolution, they have decided to seek their own solution to their problems.

1. The first and the foremost programme is to quit Hinduism and seek refuge in any religion that assures them social status. Christian, Muslim, Sikh, Budhist organisations have to step up the drive for religious conversion.
2. Constitutional reservations to Untouchables having been sabotaged by the Hindus and reservations in private sector an impossibility, they will have to go in for more radical remedies. They will fight for a separate electorate and separate settlement. They are currently scattered all over India and live in isolated ghettos. Being in a minority, thoroughly disarmed and totally dispossessed, they face danger to their life, property and the honour of their women. So to get safety and security they have to seek a separate settlement and separate electorate. And pending such a settlement, Untouchables are migrating to bigger cities. Organised shifting of population is also planned. (V.T. Rajshekar: Separate Electorate & Separate Settlement, DSA-1996).
3. Every Untouchable is asked to carry an arm for his self-protection.
4. International organisations, UN and particularly Christians and Muslims have a duty to support the liberation struggle of the Untouchables. Our struggle needs to be linked up with the other struggling groups of Blacks, Burakus, Palestinians and other friends.

V.T. Rajshekar: Christians & Dalit Liberation, (Dalit Sahitya Akademy -2000).
Edited and updated paper presented on behalf of the Untouchables of India at the Asian Conference on the "Role of religion and national harmony" organised by the Christian Conference of Asia, held at Colombo, Sri Lanka, Oct.28 to Nov.3, 1981. The paper, originally published as a booklet in 1983 and sold out long back, is reprinted on popular demand.
-------------------

Conversion as the best, simplest, surest & the most-nonviolent way to liberate Dalits

Introduction:

The Untouchables (Dalits) are the single largest chunk forming 20% of India's 1,000-million population. History has proved they are the original inhabitants of India and also builders of its great glorious Indus Valley Civilization, rated next only to the Nile Valley Civilization.

Downfall of India:
The invasion of alien Aryans brought their first downfall which was corrected by the Budha through his powerful socio-spiritual revolution. The entire lot of Dalits and other victims of Brahminism (today called Hinduism) embraced Budhism which assured them liberation. Budhism reigned over India for over 1,000 years which is described in history books as the "Golden Age of India".

A dwarf Brahmin from Kerala, Adi Shankara, took over the task of reviving Brahminism by destroying Budhism, physically annihilating Budhists and their monks, and converting Budhist viharas into Hindu temples. After a prolonged bloody war and violence, the Brahminical religion was revived by manufacturing two Epics — the Ramayana and Mahabharata — and then a scripture called the Bhagawad Gita. The caste system was evolved, codified and strictly enforced through the Manu Dharma Shastra and non-violence (ahimsa) was borrowed from Jainism and incorporated into Hinduism. Brahmins were directed to abstain from meat-eating and become vegetarians. And others were directed to refrain from eating beef and cow was declared a sacred animal (gomata) and next only to mother. These were the tricks adopted by Brahmins to destroy Budhism and re-establish the world's most violent religion of inequality, injustice and inhumanity. All these form part of the history written by Brahmin historians themselves.

This is the beginning of the downfall of India. And the wave of foreign invasions. Even the "independence" of India (1947) did not bring relief to the oppressed sections. The Scheduled Castes (20%), Scheduled Tribes (10%) and Backward Castes (35%) — a total of 65% of India's population — are today facing serious social, political, economic and religious crisis.
India as a failed state:

To this long list of the persecuted nationalities denied human rights we have to add the Muslims (15%), Christians (2.5%) and Sikhs (2.5%) — a total of 20%. Even the women of upper castes have been made a deprived lot.

A total of 85% of our population is today facing gloom and doom. Every part of India, every section of India, every community of India is facing unprecedented crisis — political, economic, social, cultural and religious. Law and order has collapsed. Corruption is sky-high. All the three pillars of the state — executive, legislature and judiciary — have broken down. The fourth estate — the media to which I belong — is in shambles. Several state governments have no money to pay salaries to their own staff. While China, which became independent two years after India, has assured food, clothing, shelter and even health and education to all its 1,300 million people, India has failed in the very first one — food. But the 15% upper castes (Hindus) have become rulers of the land by exploiting the rest of the population. (V.T. Rajshekar: India as a Failed State, Dalit Sahitya Akademy - 2004).

Vanguard of the revolution:
Why India has become a failed state? This is because the new rulers (Hindus) have failed to look after the just needs of its 85% population particularly the Dalits who are at the bottom of the society.
A country is like the chain of a cycle. The cycle can move smoothly only if every link in the chain is in perfect condition. In the Indian cycle chain only about 15% of the links are well-oiled and well-maintained. The rest of the links are rusted, decaying. That is why the cycle is not moving. It is as simple as that.
The first people who revolted against this Hindu bid to destroy India are the Dalits who are carrying the weight of this entire oppressive Hindu society. Of all the people, why the Dalits alone are in the forefront of the revolution? There are two reasons for it:

1. The Dalits are at the bottom of this social pyramid and hence the worst sufferers.
2. Besides, they are the original inhabitants of India and hence its owners.

That is why the Dalits form the vanguard of the revolution to bring about a transformation in the society. Dalits alone can save India. No other section has that much of an urge to save India.

Budhist perception of Christianity:
Though I am a Budhist since many years, I have not been a practising Budhist. We find no major contradiction between Budhism and Christianity in India. At least not to our knowledge. Dalit Voice, of which I am the Editor, has readership all over India. So far no Budhist has complained to us against the Christians. Budhists are fighting mainly the Brahminical (upper caste) people. In Maharashtra, where the largest number of Budhists live, our people do not face any problem from Christians. In fact the Christians are fully with us.
Our No.1 Enemy is Brahminism which today goes by the name of Hinduism. Though the upper caste rulers of India including their leader M.K. Gandhi declared Budhism as part of Hinduism and made Budha an avatar (incarnation), they refused to extend constitutional reservations to Dalit converts to Budhism. It was Prime Minister V.P. Singh in 1991 who removed this restriction. The Hindus are doing their best to hinduise (enslave) the Budhists. A big debate is going on in Dalit Voice on this subject and we are soon calling a meeting of concerned Budhists at Nagpur to discuss steps to fight this Hindu menace.

Role of conversion:

The social and religious aspirations of Dalits are not only to liberate themselves but through that to save India itself. According to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, the Father of India, who conducted a series of experiments in this field, this is possible only through religious conversion. (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar: Why Go For Conversion?, Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1987 reprint).

Religious conversion is the best, the simplest, the most inexpensive and also the most nonviolent way of not only liberating the Dalits but also the country as a whole. It is as simple as that.

The upper castes (Hindus) give equal treatment to Christians, Muslims and Sikhs. People belonging to these three sections (called religious minorities) did not come from outside India. Christians of India did not come from Rome, Muslims did not come from Arabia. They are converts from today's SC/ST/BCs. They achieved equality and self-respect only through conversion. When 20% of India (Muslim, Christian and Sikh) could achieve equality and self-respect through such a simple social engineering (conversion), why not the rest of the SC/ST/BCs follow this simple path?

Never ending caste war:
Such a conversion will bring happiness to both SC/ST/BCs as well as their oppressors (Hindus). As long as Dalits remain within the Hindu fold, they have to fight with Hindus daily. See what happened in Jhajjar (Haryana) recently. It is a daily fight in the countryside today. India is full of caste wars between the Hindus and Dalits. Conversion will once for all end this war and violence and there will be peace in the countryside and India as a whole.

The Hindus may ask: When there is caste inside the religions of Muslim, Christian and Sikhs, why again go into such a leaking house? This is a mischievous question. There is a great deal of difference between the Hindu caste system and the castes within other religions. Caste is not the chief characteristic of these religions. But the Hindu caste system has the religious sanction. Even M.K. Gandhi, the father of the Hindu nation, defended the caste system because it had the blessings of Hindu religion. That is why no Dalit has been made a Shankarachari to this day. But several Dalits have become Bishops, Imams and Sikh Sants. They can destroy their castes without destroying their religions. But if you destroy the caste system, Hinduism itself is dead. This is because the caste system is the other name for Hinduism. Kill caste, Hinduism is dead.
Gandhi hated Christians:

We have found Christian and church leaders praising Gandhi and some priests even imitating Gandhi. Such ignorant Christian leaders do not know the real face of Gandhi. They have not read what Gandhi had said about the church and its glorious services to the oppressed — a service which can be written only in the letters of gold. We call upon such church leaders to read Gandhi's own book published by his publishing house. (Christian Missions — Their Place in India, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad-14, 1941, edited by Bharatan Kumarappa).

In this book at several places Gandhi asks the Christian missionaries "not to entice the Harijans" (p. 52) and warns:

" Those who are engaged in the competition are not serving the cause of religion". (p. 52)
He is angry with the church because it is liberating the Dalits from Hindu slavery and racism.
Enemy No.1 of Untouchables:

The most important is Gandhi's speech at the famous United Theological College, Bangalore, which he visited sometime in 1927, long before "independence", when the college had mostly Western missionaries of repute. The speech he delivered there clearly proved that Gandhi was totally against conversion of Untouchables. Because Gandhi knew that his Hinduism, which was a gold mine for the upper castes (Hindus), would be reduced to a minority and naturally die if the Untouchables quit that religion. He warned the missionaries that:

" While I am strengthening the faith of the people, you (meaning missionaries) are undermining it" (ibid p.101). He asked the church to make the Harijans "better Hindus, as they belong to Hinduism". (Ibid p. 103).
But Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, the Saviour of Dalits, has declared that "Untouchables are not Hindu and were never Hindu".

Every word that Gandhi uttered proved that he was a hard-core Sanatani Hindu and that was why Dr.

Ambedkar called him the Enemy No.1 of Untouchables.
The church leaders will agree with this assessment if only they read this book which is a devastating criticism of the Christian services to humanity.

The conversion of Untouchables may weaken Hinduism but it will certainly strengthen the country. But to Gandhi and his jatwalas, who being Aryans and hence aliens, their religion is more important than the country. Who is anti-national, the Christian church must decide.

Kerala example:
Islam, Christianity and Sikhism have become powerful religions and the people following it have also become powerful because of their egalitarian values. So, if Dalits also quit Hinduism and embrace these egalitarian religions not only they will get social harmony but thereby they also become powerful. India also can secure peace and through peace it can become powerful. Look at the neighbouring Kerala where 25% of its population is today Muslim and another 25% Christian. Kerala is a literate, clean, disciplined and progressive state because of the leading role played by these two egalitarian religions. Similarly the North-Eastern states have become fully literate, powerful and revolutionary because the entire Mangoloid Tribals got converted to Christianity. Sikhism transformed the whole of Punjab. This is the miracle of religious conversion. Therefore, those who argue against conversion are not only the enemies of Dalits but the enemies of India itself.

Ever since India became "independent" (1947), we did not have any social harmony. After the advent of the Bharatiya Janata Party, a pure Brahminical outfit, social harmony is totally dead. The Gujarat Genocide of Muslims (2002) presents the best example. Caste system is killing the country. The Hindus themselves are fighting within themselves. If conversion can end all this problem in one stroke, why the Hindus are opposing it?

Top secret of India:

The reason is simple but it is kept a top secret. Brahminism, which has lately taken the new name of Hinduism, has become the "majority religion" by annexing Dalits (20%), Tribals (10%) and the Backward Castes (35%). Untouchables, said Dr. Ambedkar, are not Hindu and were never Hindu. Hinduism or Brahminism is an Aryan import. This is true of Tribals and BCs also. That is the reason why the Hindus hate all the three. Because the SC/ST/BCs are not Aryan but original inhabitants. By annexing this 65% non-Hindu population, the 15% minority Hindus suddenly became a majority religion and thereby rulers.

Conversion reduces the number of their slaves. And once the Hindu population — now put at 85% — is reduced, the Hindus become a minority. Conversion thus has a double-disadvantage to the Hindu:

1. The Hindu will lose his free, permanent, obedient slaves.
2. The Hindu will cease to be the ruler because he is reduced to a minority.

That is why the Hindu is shouting and crying —not because of any love for the Harijan but out of pure self-interest.

That is why the Presidential Order of 1950 was brought to confine the SC/ST/BC slaves to the Hindu prison house. The state itself was used to promote Hinduism. Even our Hindu judiciary did not question this Presidential Order.

Role of Christians:
A Brahmin Chief Minister Jayalalita brought a new law in Tamil Nadu with the same reason to see that the
Hindu edifice does not crumble and become a minority religion.

But none of these legislations or state-sponsored tyranny can stop the oppressed people from seeking social justice. That work is going on — silently but steadily.

The leadership of Muslims, Christians and Sikhs can speed up this process of social justice through conversion. Islam does not have a machinery for conversion. Christians have their powerful evangelical wing. But after the foreign missionaries left India, the work in this direction has slowed down, if not almost stopped. This is because the upper caste Christians captured the church leadership and did not want to hurt their cousins in the Hindu ruling class. Had the church leadership launched a powerful struggle, the Govt. of India would have been forced to withdraw the 1950 Presidential Order.

Dalits betrayed:

The church leadership betrayed the Dalits who would have simply flocked into Christianity (at least in South India) had the Presidential Order been withdrawn. The church leadership, both Protestant and Catholic, did not look at the Dalit issue beyond its selfish interest — that is beyond conversion.

The church is not interested in liberating the Dalits as a whole. The persecution, daily struggle, the rampant racism in the countryside, young Dalit girls becoming prostitutes, their hunger, unemployment, murder and mayhem — their struggle for social justice — does not interest the church. What type of a church is this?
The Dalits, the worst persecuted section, today are in a very bad shape. Totally impoverished. We are not referring to the SC/ST people enjoying the reserved jobs. They form just 2-3% of the Dalit population. The village-dwelling, illiterate Dalits are on starvation diet. Poverty and deprivation is not giving them even a chance to think. A revolution is preceded by a revolutionary situation. Such a revolutionary situation is not existing in any part of India. A hungry man cannot be a revolutionary. So, an organised religion like Christianity has the ability to create a revolutionary situation among Dalits by supporting their socio-economic needs and then by awakening them. As the Bible says:
" Know the Truth and Truth shall make you free".

Change in church attitude:

Did the church tell the Truth? Did the church identify the enemy? The poor, innocent Dalits do not know who is their Enemy, who is their friend. Once they come to know this Truth, they will simply explode. Why the church failed in its most important duty towards the oppressed?
The upper caste church leadership is not taking interest in such a work. Had this leadership taken liberation of the Dalits as the sole objective of the church, the non-Christian Dalits would not have opposed the Dalit Christian reservation issue.

Lately, we find some change in the attitude of the church leadership. The church offered full support to the Dalit case before the United Nations conference at Durban which sought to equate India's casteism with racism. India's upper caste-led govt. vehemently opposed our demand and defeated us at Durban though for the first time the world was shocked to hear about the horrible Hindu Apartheid system prevailing in India. After Durban, we find a welcome change in the attitude of the church.

Dalit liberation theology:
On behalf of the Dalits of India we want to tell the church authorities that if they put the full might of the church behind the Dalits, it is possible to bring about big socio-cultural changes in the country. For this the church must take to a new Dalit liberation theology and make it the principal mission of the church.
In this new mission proposed for the church, it has to take some precautions. No political party, not even a Dalit political party, will take interest in the social and religious liberation of Dalits because that will effect their votes. That is why no party is taking a stand on this issue. Nor will the educated Dalit employees will like it (of course with minor exceptions). This is because having taken advantage of reservations, they have been corrupted and co-opted by the ruling Brahminical Social Order. The church has to conduct its social engineering experiment with the village-level grassroot Dalit organisations which still remain uncontaminated and hence revolutionary.

Dalit Christians:
The church can embrace the Dalits only if it gets the full cooperation from its own Dalit Christians who form over 60% of the Christian population. Unfortunately, the Dalit Christians are angry with the church. When the upper castes within the church are not treating their own Dalit Christian brothers as equals, how will the Dalits outside develop a trust in the church?

There is good lot of mistrust between the Dalit Christians and Dalits. This can be removed if the church gives a prime place to Dr. Ambedkar's revolutionary thoughts and accords a prime place to the "Father of India". It can also seek the cooperation of Muslims in this task.

India's second independence struggle for social and religious liberation is possible only if the Dalits are at the forefront of this movement. The Dalits are willing. They are impatiently waiting. Church — being the most well-organised, cadre-based organisation with millions of its dedicated sisters working in every corner of India — is ideally cut out to act as the catalyst for such a revolution.

Is the church ready?
Further reading:
(1) Why Go For Conversion?
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's historic speech delivered in 1936, published by the Dalit Sahitya Akademy under the title, Why Go for Conversion? with a foreword by V.T. Rajshekar. (DSA third reprint, 1987 pp.30).
(2) Religious Conversion
Chapter no.12 of the book, Weapons to Fight Counter Revolution, V.T. Rajshekar, Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 2004 pp. 100.
(3) The Un-Christian Side of the Indian Church — The Plight of the Untouchable Converts.
The Rev. M. Azariah (former Bishop of Madras, CSI), Dalit Sahitya Akademy, 1989, pp.22.

Edited and enlarged paper presented at the consultation organised by the South Asia Institute of Advanced Christian Studies in Bangalore on Dec.3, 2002.
V.T. RAJSHEKAR

The author is the Editor of the powerful Dalit Voice, India's oldest and the largest circulated English journal, published in several Indian languages. Originally a senior journalist from the Indian Express, he is considered the country's most original thinker, scholar and also philosopher. As India's most famous Dalit writer, he has authored over 50 world famous books dealing with the problems of caste, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Brahminism etc.

Dalit Sahitya Akademy
109, 7th Cross, Palace Lower Orchards,
Bangalore - 560 003. india

****

 

నా బ్లాగులో నా ఇంటర్వ్యూ...

ఈ మధ్యకాలంలో వచ్చిన వాళ్ళకి నా బ్లాగు మొత్తం చదివే తీరికా ఓపికా లేవుగానీ, నన్ను వ్యతిరేకిస్తూ ఎక్కడైనా వ్యాఖ్యరాస్తే మాత్రం వారికి విపరీతమైన ఫ్యాన్ ఫాలోయింగ్ వచ్చేస్తుండటంతో అదొక సరదాగా మార్చుకుని నాకొక "హిందూవ్యతిరేక" బ్రాండొకటి తగిలించేసి పనికానిచ్చేసుకుంటున్నారు.

వాళ్ళకి నా బ్లాగు మొత్తం చదివి నా పంథా అర్థం చేసుకోమని చెబుదామనుకుంటే, అది వ్యర్థం అనిపించింది. నేనేమిటో తెలుసుకుకోవడానికి, నా ఆలోచనా విధానం కొంతైనా అర్థం చేసుకోవడానికి సులువైన మార్గం ఏమిటా అని చూస్తుంటే, జ్యోతిగారు నాతో చేసిన పిచ్చాపాటి గుర్తొచ్చింది. దాన్ని ఇక్కడ పెడుతున్నా...కొంతైనా నా గురించి కొందరు తెలుసుకుంటారని ఒక చిన్న ఆలోచన...

జ్యోతి : నమస్తే మహేశ్ గారు , ముందుగా మీ వివరాలు చెప్తారా ? చదువు, ఉద్యోగం, కుటుంబం వగైరా..

మహేశ్ : పుట్టినూరు చిత్తూరు జిల్లా మదనపల్లి, ఇప్పుడు అమ్మానాన్నా వాయల్పాడులో ఉన్నారు.అమ్మానాన్న, ఒక అన్నయ్య,చెల్లెలు. డిగ్రీ ఆంగ్ల సాహిత్యం మైసూర్ లో. పోస్టుగ్రాడ్యుయేషన్ కమ్మ్యూనికేషన్ లో హైదరాబాద్ యూనివర్సిటీ. కమ్మ్యూని కేషన్ కన్సల్టెంట్ గా ఉద్యోగం

జ్యోతి: మీరు చిన్నప్పటినుండి , చదువుకునేటప్పుడు ఏదైనా లక్ష్యం అంటూ పెత్తుకున్నారా . లేదా అలా చదివేసారా ?

మహేశ్ : చదువుకొనేప్పుడు ఖచ్చితమైన గోల్ అంటూ ఏమీ లేవు. కాలేజిలో ఫిల్మ్ క్లబ్ లో జాయినైన తరువాత సినిమా తియ్యాలనే కోరిక కలిగింది.

జ్యోతి: మీ ఇంట్లో ఇది చదువు, అది చదువు , పెద్ద ఉద్యోగం సంపాదించుకోవాలి అని చెప్పలేదా?

మహేశ్ : లేదు.ఇంజనీర్ అవ్వాలనే మా నాన్నగారి ఆశయం మా అన్నయ్య తీరుస్తుంటే నేను ఫ్రీగానే ఉన్నాను.
నాకు చేతనయ్యింది హ్యూమానిటీస్ ఒక్కటే అని నాకు అనిపిస్తే ఇంటర్మీడియట్ లో అదే తీసుకున్నాను

జ్యోతి: ఐతే మీ ఇష్టానికి చదువుకోమన్నారన్నమాట మీ నాన్నగారు.

మహేశ్ : అప్పుడు మా కుటుంబం కొంత నిరాశపడిన మాట వాస్తవం. ఎందుకంటే ఆర్ట్స్ అంటే పనికిరానోళ్ళు తీసుకునే కోర్సని పేరుకదా.

జ్యోతి: మరి ఉద్యోగం మీకు నచ్చిందే ప్రయత్నించారా . దొరికిన దాంట్లో చేరిపోయారా ?

మహేశ్ : ఆశయం సినిమా. కానీ ఇప్పటివరకూ అది చెయ్యలేదుకదా. అంటే బ్రతుకు తెరువుకోసం ఇప్పటికీ చాలా చేస్తున్నట్లే లెక్క. కానీ ప్రస్తుతం చేస్తున్నదాంట్లో ఆత్మతృప్తి కూడా ఉందికాబట్టిఆది బోనస్ అనుకోవాలి.

జ్యోతి: చదువు విషయంలో ఎటువంటి ఒత్తిడి లేదా? ఇప్పటి పిల్లల్లా ఇంజనీరు, డాక్టర్ అని ఉన్నట్టు.

మహేశ్ : మైసూర్ లో ఇంగ్లీషు లిటరేచర్ అంటే మొదట్లో భయపడినా స్నేహితులూ సీనియర్ల సహాయంతో నెగ్గుకొచ్చాను. ఆ తరువాత అదే సాహిత్యం పట్ల ప్రేమగా మారింది. సినిమా పట్ల నా ఆశయానికి ఊపిరినిచ్చింది

జ్యోతి: సినిమా జీవితాంతం బ్రతుకుతెరువుకు పనికొస్తుందా? .అది తాత్కాలికమే కదా

మహేశ్ : అందుకే ఇప్పుడు సినిమా తియ్యాలనుకుంటున్నానే గానీ దాన్ని బ్రతుకుతెరువు చేసుకోదలుచుకోలేదు.

జ్యోతి: తల్లితండ్రులు, పిల్లలు . ఒకరిపట్ల ఒకరికి బాధ్యత ఉందా? లేకుంటే వాళ్లిష్టం. అటువంటివి ఆలోచించకూడదు. ఎవరి జీవితం వారిది అంటారా ?

మహేశ్ : పెళ్ళితరువాత ఎవరి కుటుంబ జీవితం వారిదే. అంతమాత్రానా బాధ్యతలు లేనట్లు కాదు. కానీ ఒకరికుటుంబ విషయాలలో మరొకరి అనవసర జోక్యం మాత్రం ఖచ్చితంగా ఉండకూడదని ఆశిస్తాను. అదే వీలైనంత సౌమ్యంగా నిర్దేషిస్తానుకూడాను.

జ్యోతి : కాలేజిలో సీరియస్ గా చదువుకున్నారా ? లేక ఫుల్ ఎంజాయ్, అమ్మాయిలను ఏడిపించడం, ప్రేమలు గట్రా..

మహేశ్ : నా కాలేజి జీవితం ఒక ఆదర్శ కాలేజి జీవితం లాంటిదే. చదువూ,అల్లరి వేషాలూ,యవ్వన ప్రేమ, గొడవలూ, అలవర్చుకోదగి(గ)ని అలవాట్లూ అన్నీ ఉన్నాయి. జీవితాన్ని అర్థం చేసుకునే అన్ని తప్పుల్నీ సావకాశంగా చేసి, అనుభవించి,నేర్చుకున్న జీవితం. నా కాలేజీ జీవితం.

జ్యోతి : ప్రేమ అంటే ఏంటి మీ ఉద్దేశ్యంలో?

మహేశ్ : చాలా కష్టమైన ప్రశ్న. ఎందుకంటే ప్రేమను నిర్వచించడం మెదలుపెడితే, ప్రతినిర్వచనాన్నీ "ప్రేమ కాదు" అనుకోవచ్చనేది నా అభిప్రాయం.

జ్యోతి : ఓకె. మరి సినిమాలలో చూపించేది మాత్రం ఒకటే కదా

మహేశ్ : అందుకే నావరకూ ప్రేమ ఒక స్పందన. దానికి తర్కాలూ,హేతువులూ లేవు. అది అలా జరిగిపోతుంది. అంతే!

జ్యోతి : ప్రేమ అంటే యవ్వనంలో ఉన్న అమ్మాయి , అబ్బాయి మధ్య మాత్రమే ఉండేదా?.ఎక్కువ వయసు వారి మధ్య ఉండదా?

మహేశ్ : ప్రేమ అనే స్పందన ఏ వయసులోనైనా ఎవరి పట్లనైనా కలవచ్చు. దానికి కండిషన్స్ దానికి పర్యసానం ఏమిటి అనేదాన్నిబట్టి ఉంటుంది.

జ్యోతి : ఇష్టానికి , ప్రేమకి తేడా ఏంటి??

మహేశ్ : ఇష్టానికి పరిధి ఉంటుంది. ప్రేమకు పరిధి లెదని నా ఉద్దేశం. ప్రేమకు పర్యవసానం లేకుండా బేషరతుగా మనతరఫునుంచీ మనం ప్రేమించెయ్యడం ఉత్తమమని నా అభిప్రాయం.

జ్యోతి : ఇద్దరు యువతీయువకులు సన్నిహితంగా ఉంటే అది ప్రేమకు దారి తీస్తుందా? అది తప్ప వేరే సంబంధం ఉండకూడదా?

మహేశ్ : ఆడామగా సన్నిహితంగా ఉంటే ప్రేమ కలగకపోయినా ప్రేమ ప్రస్థావమాత్రం ఖచ్చితంగా వస్తుంది. అది సహజం. కాకపోతే స్నేహం,ప్లెటోనిక్ బంధం,ఆత్మసంబంధం లాంటి పెర్లతో ప్రేమకు ఆల్టర్నేటివ్ పదాలు వాడుకుని సర్ధుకుపోవచ్చు. ముఖ్యంగా ఇద్దరు eligible అడామగా ఉన్నప్పుడు అది చాలా "సాధారణంగా" జరిగే విషయం.

జ్యోతి : కాని మన దేశంలో ఇంకా ప్రేమ అనేది ఇంకా forbidden word అనిపిస్తుంది. అమ్మను కూడా ప్రేమించొచ్చు. I love you చెప్పొచ్చు. కాని చాలామంది ఇది ఒక బూతు మాటలా, అనకూడని పదంలా భావిస్తారు కదా!

మహేశ్ : ఇంగ్లీషులో ultimate expression of love is love making అంటారు. అంటే, ప్రేమకు పరాకాష్ట ప్రేమించడం(love making) అని. ఇక్కడ sex అనేపదం ఉపయోగించలేదని గమనించాలి.

జ్యోతి : కాని చాలా మందికి ఈ రెండు పదాలకు ఒకటే అర్ధం తీస్తారు.

మహేశ్ : అదే ఇక్కడొచ్చిన చిక్కు. మన దేశంలో శారీరక సంబంధాలు అవసరాలకోసమేతప్ప, అనుభూతులకోసం కాదు. కానీ మనస్ఫూర్తిగా ప్రేమించిన తరువాత శారీరక పవిత్రతకిప్రత్యేకమైన విలువ ఇవ్వాలా అనేది వ్యక్తులు నిర్ణయించుకోవలసిన విషయం.

జ్యోతి : ఎవరైనా తమకు ఇష్టమైనవారిని Love you అంటే పెడర్దాలు తీస్తారు.

మహేశ్ : ప్రేమే ఒక పెడర్ధంగా తయారయిన సమాజంలో ప్రేమించడం తప్పుడుపనే.

జ్యోతి : కాని ప్రేమ అనే పదం చాలామందికి నచ్చదు.

మహేశ్ : అదొక సహజ ప్రక్రియ అని ఒప్పుకోలేని సంఘంలో అదొక బూతే. యవ్వనంలో ఉన్న యివతీయువకులు రహస్య ప్రేమ అనుభవించాల్సిన ఖర్మ పట్టించడం తప్ప ఈ ముసుగులు ఇప్పటివరకూ ఎందుకూ పనికొచ్చినట్లు నాకైతే అనిపించడం లేదు.

జ్యోతి : యవ్వనంలో ఉన్నవాళ్లే ప్రేమించాలా?

మహేశ్ : ఏ వయసులోనైనా ప్రేమించొచ్చు. దానికి కావాల్సింది స్పందించే హృదయం. కాకపోతే ప్రేమ చాలా వరకూ యవ్వనానికి సంబంధించిన విస్ట్రుత సమస్యకాబట్టి అదే ఎక్కువ చర్చించడం జరుగుతుంది. అంతే!

జ్యోతి : కాని ఇక్కడ ప్రేమ అనేది శారీరక సంబంధం కాదని నా ఉద్దేశ్యం.

మహేశ్ : శారీరక సంబంధం ఒకటే ప్రేమ అని నాఉద్దేశం అసలు కాదు. అందుకే దాన్ని స్పందన అంటున్నాను కానీ కోరిక కాదు.

జ్యోతి : ok. మీరు బ్లాగులో రాస్తున్న టాపిక్స్ బయట కూడా చర్చిస్తారా ?

మహేశ్ : చేస్తాను. చాలావరకూ నేను చర్చించిన విషయాలే బ్లాగులో ఉంటాయి.

జ్యోతి : మరి అక్కడ స్పందన ఎలా ఉంటుంది.

మహేశ్ : ఇంకా ఆరోగ్యవంతంగా ఉంటాయి. ఒకరి ఎదురుగా ఒకరు కూర్చున్న తరువాత చర్చించడం ఇంకా సులభం.

జ్యోతి : మీరు రాసేది ఖచ్చితంగా సరైనది. ఎదుటివాళ్లు చెప్పేది తప్పు అని ఎందుకు వాదిస్తారు ?

మహేశ్ : నేను చెప్పింది ఖచ్చితంగా సరైనది ఎదుటివాళ్ళది తప్పు అని నేను ఎప్పుడూ వాదించలేదు. నేను చెప్పేది నాకు తెలిసిన ఒక ధృక్కోణం అని మాత్రమే బలంగా చెబుతాను.

జ్యోతి : అలా అని ఎదుటివాళ్లు చెప్పింది కూడా కరెక్ట్ అని ఒప్పుకోరుగా :) ..

మహేశ్ : ఎదుటివాళ్ళు వాళ్ళ కోణం నుంచీ కరెక్టయ్యుండచ్చు కానీ నా ధ్రుక్కోణంలో నాదే కరెక్టని ఖచ్చితంగా చెప్పడంలో తప్పులేదుగా!

జ్యోతి : పెళ్లి కాకుండా కలిసి ఉండడం అనే విషయం మీద మీ బ్లాగులో అప్పుడెప్పుడో గొడవ జరిగినట్టుంది..

మహేశ్ : ఇద్దరు consenting ఆడామగా కలిసి జీవించాలని నిర్ణయించుకుంటే చట్టానికే వాళ్ళను ఆపే హక్కులేదు.
అలాంటప్పుడు అనామక వ్యక్తులకు అది తప్పని వాదించే అధికారం ఎవరిచ్చారన్ది మాత్రమే నా ప్రశ్న.

జ్యోతి : నిజమే. అది తప్పు కాదా మరి?

మహేశ్ : అదితప్పని చట్టం నిర్ణయించనప్పుడు దాన్ని తప్పని ఎవరు నిర్ణయించాలి?

జ్యోతి : ఈ విషయంలో మీ ఉద్దేశ్యం ఏంటి మరి. అది తప్పు కాదా ?

మహేశ్ : నా వరకూ అది వాళ్ళ వ్యక్తిగత విషయం. నాకు సంబంధం లేదు. జడ్జిమెంట్ పాస్ చేసే అధికారం లేదు.

జ్యోతి : సరే.

మహేశ్ : నిరసించే హక్కు అసలు లేదు.

జ్యోతి : బ్లాగింగ్ వల్ల మీ అనుభవం, అనుభూతి.

మహేశ్ : నా ఆలొచనల్ని రాసుకుని దాచుకునే ఒక ఫోరం నాకు దక్కింది. చూసి స్పందించే పాఠకులూ లభించారు. ఆనందమే.

జ్యోతి : దీనివల్ల మీకు మిత్రులు ఎక్కువయ్యారా? శత్రువులు మొదలయ్యారా?

మహేశ్ : మిత్రులే ఎక్కువయ్యారు. విభేధించేవాళ్ళు కొందరున్నా వాళ్ళని విరోధులని చెప్పలేను.

జ్యోతి : మీ ఆలోచనలు పంచుకుని, చర్చిస్తుంటే ఏమనిపిస్తుంది. అదీ ఎదుట మనిషి లేకుండా, ఎవరెక్కడివారో, ఎలా ఉంటారో తెలీకుండా...

మహేశ్ : నేను పోరాడేది ఆలోచనలతో,సిద్ధాంతాలతో అదే బ్లాగుల్లోనూ జరుగుతోంది. ఈ process చాలా వరకూ ఎదురుగా మనిషి లేకుండానే జరుగుతుంది. కాబట్టి బ్లాగింగ్ నాకు చాలా సహజంగా అనిపిస్తుంది.

జ్యోతి :ఇలా బ్లాగులు, చర్చల వల్ల మీ ఆలోచన, ఆవగాహన, రచనాశైలి... ఇలా ఏమైనా మార్పులు జరిగాయా?

మహేశ్ : ఆలోచనల్లో కొంత మార్పు వచ్చింది. అంటే ఇంకా స్థిరపడ్డాయి. శైలి ఖచ్చితంగా అభివృద్ది చెందింది. నాదంటూ ఒక మార్క్ కనిపించడం మొదలయ్యింది.

జ్యోతి : మీ బ్లాగులో రాసేది మీరు కరెక్ట్ అనుకునే విషయాలు కదా? ఇతరులు అది తప్పు అన్నా ఒప్పుకోరు , మీ పద్దతి మార్చుకోరు .. రైట్..

మహేశ్ : ఎవరో చెప్పారు కాబట్టి "తప్పు" అని వేరొకరు చెబితే నేను ఒప్పుకోవడానికి సిద్ధంగా లేను. అయినా అది తప్పు అని వారు నమ్మితే నాకు సమస్య లేదు. ఆ అనుభవాన్నే వారి జీవితానికి అన్వయించుకో మనండి. కానీ, నన్ను వారి అనుభవం నమ్మకం ఆధారంగా సంస్కరించదలచడం నాకు ఆమోదయోగ్యం కాదు. నా పద్ధతి నా అనుభవాల పరిణామం. వారి దగ్గరున్న అనుభవాన్ని చెప్పి నన్ను convince చెయ్యగలిగేవరకూ నా నమ్మకమే నాకు సత్యం. కేవలం నన్ను వ్యతిరేకిస్తూ వాదించినంత మాత్రానా నేను మారాలంటారా? అదీ నా అనుభవ సారాన్ని పక్కనపెట్టి!

జ్యోతి : మరి వేరే బ్లాగుల్లో రాసిన టపాలు కూడా అలాగే అనుకోవచ్చు కదా. అది వాళ్ల అనుభవం అని. ఎందుకు విమర్శిస్తారు ? వెక్కిరించినట్టు వ్యాఖ్యలు రాస్తారు . అది అ బ్లాగరుకు బాధ కలుగుతుంది అని తెలుసుకోలేరా ?

మహేశ్ : నేను చర్చకు ముఖ్యంగా సైద్ధాంతిక చర్చకు ఆహ్వనిస్తానే గానీ వారు చెబుతున్నది తప్పు అని చెప్పను.

జ్యోతి : మరి నేను రాసిన టపాలలో మీరు రాసిందేంటి? అది రాసినవారి అనుభూతి అని ఆలోచించకుండా దాన్ని మీ దృక్పధంలో ఆలోచిస్తే ఎలా?

మహేశ్ : ముఖ్యంగా మతపరమైన విషయాలలో అధికారాత్మకంగా ఎవరైనా చెబితే దాన్ని ప్రశ్నిస్తాను. ఎందుకంటే అక్కడ వారు తమ నమ్మకాన్ని కాక అదే ultimate knowledge అనే అహాన్ని ప్రదర్శించడం కనిపిస్తుంది. అందుకే దాన్ని తార్కికంగా హేతుబద్ధంగా చర్చించాలి అని ఆహ్వానిస్తాను.


జ్యోతి : మతపరమైన విషయాలలో ఎవరి అభిప్రాయం వారిది. మరి మీరు ఇతరులతో ఎలా వాదించగలరు . మేము మీకు రుజువు ఎందుకు చూపించాలి. ఎందుకు చర్చించాలి. mee అనుభవం, అభిప్రాయం మీది ఐనప్పుడు నా అనుభవం, అనుభూతి నాది.

మహేశ్ : హరిసేవలో లేక మీ బ్లాగులో నేను రాసినవి alternate possibilities నేనక్కడ మీ నమ్మకాన్ని ప్రశ్నించడం కాకుండా ఆ నమ్మకం యొక్క source లో కొంత alternative ధృక్పధం యొక్క possibilities ని చూపించాను.

జ్యోతి : అది నా వ్యక్తిగత అభిప్రాయం. అది తప్పు లేదా మార్చుకోవాలి అనే మీకుందా ?

మహేశ్ : నాకు ఎవర్నీ మార్చే హక్కులేదు. నాకు తెలిసిన పర్యాయధృక్పధం తెలియపర్చడం తప్ప. మూఖ్యంగా మతపరమైన విషయాలలో. కానీ కులపర,రాజకీయ పరమైన విషయాలలో నాకు కొన్ని నిర్ధుష్ట్యమైన అభిప్రాయాలున్నాయి.

జ్యోతి : నిజమే ఉన్నాయి. కాని ఇతరుల అభిప్రాయాలను ప్రశ్నించడం ఎంతవరకు సమంజసం?

మహేశ్ : ప్రశ్నించడం ఎప్పుడూ సమంజసమే. కానీ నేను చెప్పింది ఒప్పుకొమ్మని భీష్మించడం సమంజసం కాదు. చర్చించడం, సమంజసం ఆ చర్చల్లో నాదే సరైందని నిరూపించబడాలనుకోవడం సమంజసం కాదు.
జ్యోతి : ఈ రోజుల్లో సర్వసాధారణమైన ఈవ్ టీజింగ్ కి కారణాలు,వాటికి ఏమైనా పరిష్కారాలు ఉన్నాయంటారా? మీరు ఎక్కడైనా మహిళలను వేదించే సన్నివేశం చూస్తే ఎం చేస్తారు?

మహేశ్ : ఈవ్ టీజింగ్ గురించి చాలా విశదంగా నేను రెండు భాగాల్లో ఒక టపా రాసాను. అందుకో నాకు తెలిసిన కొన్ని కారణాలను ఆధారాలతో సహా తెలిపాను నేను ఎక్కడైనా ఈవ్ టీజింగ్ చూస్తే అడ్డుకోవడానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తాను.


జ్యోతి: ప్రేమ వివాహం , పెద్దలు కుదిర్చిన వివాహం.. ఏది మంచిది అంటారు? పిల్లలకు మంచి కుటుంబం నుండి సంబంధాలు చూసి పెళ్లి చేయాలనుకోవడం తల్లితండ్రులు ఆశించడం తప్పా?

మహేశ్ : ప్రేమ వివాహంలోనైనా కుదిర్చిన వివాహంలోనైనా, ప్రేముండేంతవరకూ రెండూ మంచివే రెండూ సఫలమే. తల్లిదండ్రులు family suitability కన్నా అబ్బాయీ-అమ్మాయిల compatibility పై శ్రద్ద పెట్టినంతవరకూ ఖచ్చితంగా అధికారముంది. పిల్లల అంగీకారంతో పెళ్ళిజరిపేంతవరకూ హక్కుకూడా ఉంది. బలవంతపు పెళ్ళిల్లూ, బ్లాక్ మెయిలింగ్ పెళ్ళిళ్ళూ జరపనంతవరకూ పిల్లల పెళ్ళిళ్ళపై సర్వహక్కులూ ఉన్నాయి, ఉంటాయి. కానీ, దాన్ని మీరితే తల్లిదండ్రులకన్నా పిల్లలు వ్యక్తులుగా తమకుతాము ముఖ్యులమన్న సత్యానికే నా ప్రాధాన్యత.



జ్యోతి : మీకు సినిమాలు అంటే చాలా ఇష్టం కదా. మరి మీకు నచ్చిన సినిమా ???

మహేశ్ : ఒక సినిమా అని లేదు. నచ్చిన సినిమాలున్నాయి కొన్ని వందల సంఖ్యలో ఉన్నాయి. తెలుగు,తమిళ్,మళయాళం,కన్నడ,హిందీ,బెంగాలీ,ఇంగ్లీష్, జపనీస్,చైనీస్,కొరియన్,ఇరానియన్ ఇలా నాకు ఇష్టమైన సినిమాలు భాషాప్రాంతీయభేధం లేకుండా ఉన్నాయి. లిస్టు చెప్పడం మొదలయితే మొత్తం టపా స్పేస్ ఆక్రమించేస్తాయి. దాంతోపాటూ అవి నాకెందుకు నచ్చాయో చెప్పకుండా వొదలనుకాబట్టి, ప్రస్తుతానికి ఇంతటితో వదిలెయ్యండి.



జ్యోతి : మన దేశరాజకీయాల మీద మీ అభిప్రాయం? మనకు ఇంతకంటే మంచి నాయకులు దొరికే అవకాశం లేదా? నిజాయితీగా మనను పాలించే ప్రభుత్వ ప్రతినిధులను మనం ఎన్నుకోగలమా?? అలాంటి వ్యక్తులు ఉన్నారా?

మహేశ్ : నా ఉద్దేశంలో రాజకీయం ఇలా తయారవ్వడానికి కారణాలు రెండు. ఒకటి ఎన్నికల విధానం. రెండవది, స్వల్పకాలిక లాభాలుతప్ప దీర్ఘకాలిక ప్రయోజనాల్ని అర్థం చేసుకోలేని ప్రజలు. ఒకవైపు పరిణితిలేని వ్యవస్థ మరోవైపు పరిపక్వత లేని ప్రజలు. రెండువైపులా సమస్యాత్మకంగా ఉండటంవలనే మన రాజకీయం ఇలా తగలడింది. అందుకే నాయకత్వంకన్నా విధానం ముఖ్యమైన రాజకీయాలు కావాలి. ఈ విధంగా చూస్తే లోక్ సత్తా మీద నాకు మంచి నమ్మకం. గెలుస్తుందన్న విశ్వాసం లేకపోయినా గెలిస్తే రాజకీయాల్ని సమూలంగా మార్చగల సత్తా లోక్ సత్తా విధానాలకుంది.


జ్యోతి : కొన్నేళ్ల క్రిందటి మహిళలు, ఆధునిక మహిళల మీద మీ అభిప్రాయం. అప్పటికి , ఇప్పటికి వాళ్లు మారారా? మారుతున్నారా? వైవాహిక జీవితంలో ఒడిదుడుకులకు ఎవరు బాధ్యులు? స్త్రీయా పురుషుడా? నేటి మహిళపై మీ అభిప్రాయం? ఎలా ఉండాలి అనుకుంటారు?

మహేశ్ : పాతతరమైనా కొత్తతరమైనా మహిళల్లో మార్పొచ్చినా మహిళల సామాజిక స్థితిలో రావాల్సినంత మార్పు రావటం లేదని నాకు అనిపిస్తుంది. ఇక్కడ సమస్య కాలానుగుణంగా (మహిళల విషయంలో) మారని సమాజానిదేతప్ప స్త్రీలది కాదని గుర్తించాలి. ముఖ్యంగా మగాడు ఈ మార్పుని హృదయపూర్వకంగా అంగీకరించేలా తయారవనంతకాలం ఒకడుగు ముందుకైతే రెండడుగులు వెనక్కు ఛందంగా పరిస్థితి కొనసాగుతుంది.

పెళ్ళి శాంతీయుతంగా విజయవంతంగా కొనసాగాలంటే ఆడామగా ఇద్దరి బాధ్యతా ఉంది. ఎవరిబాధ్యత ఎక్కువ అంటే ఎవరెక్కువ తీసుకుంటే వారిదని చెప్పాలేగానీ ఇటు ఆడవారిదో లేక అటు మగవారిదో అనిచెప్పే సమాధానం కాదిది.
ఆధునిక మహిళ "ఆధునికంగా" ఉండాలి. అలా మానసికంగా ఆధునికత సంతరించుకోకుండా, పైపై మెరుగులు దిద్దుకుంన్నంత మాత్రానా ఎవరూ ఆధునిక మహిళ కాలేరని గుర్తించాలి.



జ్యోతి : ప్రేమలో విఫలమై ఆత్మహత్య చేసుకునే సందర్భాలలో ఎవరిది తప్పు? ఇటువంటి సమస్య ఉన్నవాళ్లు మనకు తెలిసినవాళ్లు అయితే మనమే విధంగా పరిష్కరించగలం?

మహేశ్ : ఖచ్చితంగా ఆత్మహత్య చేసుకున్నోళ్ళదే. అందులో ఏమాత్రం సందేహం లేదు. ప్రేమ జీవితంలో ఒక భాగమేగానీ జీవితం కాదు. మరిన్ని ప్రేమలకు ఆస్కారమున్న జీవితాన్ని ఒక్క ప్రేమ కోసం వదిలేసుకోవడం మూర్ఖత్వంకాక మరేమిటి? ఆత్మహత్య ఒక క్షణికమైన ఆవేశంలో జరిగే ఘటన. ఆ క్షణాన మనం ఆ వ్యక్తుల్ని ఆపగలిగి కొంత విషయాన్ని practical గా చర్చించగలిగితే వారు ఆ ఆలోచనను మానుకుంటారనుకుంటాను.


జ్యోతి : మీ బ్లాగులో మీకు ఎక్కువగా నచ్చిన టపాలు. నచ్చిన బ్లాగులు, టపాలు ఏవి??కాస్త చెప్తారా?

మహేశ్ : నా టపాలన్నీ నాకు ఇష్టమైనవే. లేకుంటే అసలు రాయనుకదా! ఇక నచ్చిన ఇతర బ్లాగు టపాలంటారా...ఘాటైన వ్యాఖ్యలు చేసేవీ అభినందనలతో ఆస్వాదించేవీ అన్నీ నాకు నచ్చినవే ఉంటాయి..అటోఇటో. నచ్చిన బ్లాగులు కూడా చాలానే ఉన్నాయి వాటిల్లో కొన్ని మనసులోమాట, కలగూరగంప, అబ్రకదబ్ర గారి తెలుగోడు, స్నేహమా , బాబాగారి కవితల సాహితీ-యానం , రెండురెళ్ళ ఆరు ఇంకా చాలా ఉన్నాయి.



జ్యోతి : టెర్రరిస్ట్ అంటే ఎవరు? ఈ నక్సలైట్ల సమస్య ఎప్పటికైనా తీరుతుందా??

మహేశ్ : టెర్రర్ ని స్టృష్టించే ప్రతి వాడూ టెర్రరిస్టే. అందులో ఏమీ తేడా లేదు. అది మతం పేరుతో జరిగినా, కులం పేరుతో జరిగినా,ఆర్థిక-సామాజిక-రాజకీయ కారణాలతో జరిగినా జనసామాన్యాన్ని భయభ్రాంతుల్ని చేసే ప్రతిచర్యా టెర్రరిజమే. నక్సలిజం తన సైద్ధాంతిక మూలాల్ని మరిచి చాలా దూరానికి వెళ్ళిపోయింది. నక్సలిజం సమాధానాలు చూపడానికి బయల్దేరిన సమస్యల్లో ఇప్పుడు అదొకటిగా మారింది.కాబట్టి అది తీరదు..ఆ సమస్యని మనమే తీర్చాలి.



జ్యోతి : మీరు చెప్పే విషయాలు నిజజీవితంలో పాటిస్తారా? నిజాయితీగా ఉంటారా? లంచం గట్రా ఇచ్చి పని చేయించుకుంటారా?

మహేశ్ : జీవితంలో వీలైనంత నిజాయితీగానే ఉంటాను. డైరెక్టుగా లంచం ఇవ్వలేదుగానీ, influence ఉపయోగించిన సందర్భాలున్నాయి. ఇక నేను చెప్పే విషయాల్లో కొన్ని ఆలోచనలుంటాయి, కొన్ని అభిప్రాయాలుంటాయి, చాలావరకూ నా జీవితంలో పాటించాకే చెబుతాను.ఇతరుల సమ్మతికోసం నేను జీవించడం లేదు. నాకిష్టమొచ్చినట్లు నేను బ్రతకడానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తున్నాను. నా జీవితానికి సంబంధించినవారికి అవి అర్థమయ్యేలా చెప్పవలసిన బాధ్యత నాకుంది. ఆ పని మాత్రం ఖచ్చితంగా చేస్తాను.


జ్యోతి : మీ టపాలు , వ్యాఖ్యలు చూస్తుంటే ఎప్పుడు రఫ్ అండ్ టఫ్ గా ఉంటారనిపిస్తుంది. సెంటిమెంట్స్ అంటూ ఉండవా? ఇతరుల మనసు అర్ధం చేసుకోవడానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తారా? ముఖ్యంగా మీ అమ్మ, మీ ఆవిడ గురించి.

మహేశ్ : నేను కరుగ్గా వుండను. ఖచ్చితంగా ఉంటాను. ఇలా వుండటానికీ అనుభూతులు లేకుండా ఉండటానికీ అసలు లంకే లేదు. నాకంటూ కొన్ని ఆలోచనలున్నాయి కాబట్టే అదే రీతిలో నా అనుభూతులుంటాయే తప్ప అవేవీ లేని మోడుని కాను. మనసుల్ని అర్థం చేసుకోవడం ఎవరికీ సాధ్యం కాదు. అందుకే మనుషుల్ని అర్థం చేసుకోవడానికి ప్రయత్నిస్తాను. ఒక్కోసారి మనుషులు కూడా అర్థం కారు. అదే జీవితం.


జ్యోతి : మహేష్ గారు మీ వృత్తిలో బిజీగా ఉన్నా మాకోసం సమయం కేటాయించినందుకు ధన్యవాదాలు.

మహేశ్ : మీకు కూడా ధన్యవాదాలు..

******