Recently, I stumbled upon vitriolic tweets linked to my column from last week. I had clearly touched a Hindutva nerve. Their assumption that I, 'a Christian is against brahminical patriarchy' amused me
Feminist historians have spoken long ago about how brahminical patriarchy is premised on two inter-connected hierarchies: gender and caste. The poster designed by Thenmozhi Soundararajan, a Dailt rights activist based in the US. Pic/Twitter
I've never had the stamina for Twitter. I already have within me a repository of renewable rage potent enough to electrify a megalopolis, were the technology available. I decided I didn't need to expose myself to more triggers. I haven't disabled my account, but I log in ever so often just to see if someone has tried to get in touch with me through a direct message, or to retweet a link to a piece I've published, or to find information about nearby protests I could attend.
This Monday I was doing exactly that. But while sifting through mentions of my handle, I stumbled upon a range of vitriolic tweets linked to my column from last week. I had clearly touched a Hindutva nerve. In retaliation, its troll army had reared their vitriolic head and decided to go somewhat nuclear on me. I wasn't intimidated as much as amused. How do you react when someone who doesn't know you from Eve expresses confusion that I, "a 'Christian' woman is against 'brahminical' patriarchy," as if these two concepts were mutually exclusive, as if the caste system didn't historically replicate itself during conversion. I learned two things from this incident.
ADVERTISEMENT
First: Brahminical patriarchy is clearly a trigger for many bhakts and sanghis. I should have known when I signed off on 'War against brahminical patriarchy' as a fitting headline for the column that it would make many people's blood boil. Would I have decided against it? Certainly not. If anything, it is very important for us to institute this term into our feminist vocabulary, to make our ideology truly intersectional. Perhaps if it was common to use it we wouldn't have reacted so poorly back in November 2018, when the Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, met a group of Indian women during his visit to India and posed for a photo holding a poster, slickly designed by Thenmozhi Soundararajan, gifted to him by Sanghapali Aruna, who co-runs the Twitter handle 'Dalit Women Fight' that simply read, 'Smash Brahminical Patriarchy'. He was not only trolled, but was compelled to apologise. He was accused of being a "brahmin-hating, racist bigot". To refer to brahminical patriarchy is to refer to an oppressive social order of caste. Feminist historians, like Uma Chakravarti, have spoken long ago about how such a form of patriarchy is premised on two inter-connected hierarchies: gender and caste. G Sampath articulated it simply and eloquently in a piece he wrote back then. "The former accords women an inferior social status vis-a-vis men, while the latter accords brahmins a superior social status vis-a-vis all other varnas, or caste groups. Through the male control of female sexuality, the uniquely Hindu institution of caste purity continues to be perpetuated. Hence, in the Indian context, it makes little sense to issue a call to arms against patriarchy without also referencing the brahminical roots of this patriarchy..." explains Sampath.
Second: Brahminical patriarchy, when operational in sync with majoritarian politics that thrives on a deep hatred of intellectual thought, will never tire of finding inventive ways to invalidate female subjectivity and feminist resistance. For instance, unable to fathom that the Muslim women in Shaheen Bagh have been exercising their own political agency by continuing to peacefully steer their ingenious sit-in, the Hindutva brigade decided they must be surely paid, and if not, they might be obeying a diktat from their husbands. Such a theory reveals an inherent and insidious misogyny. It suggests that women cannot and do not have their own minds, they must, therefore, be subject to a man's will or the will of an Opposition party. It also reveals an Islamophobic sentiment coupled with an espousal of fragile masculinity. It purports that Muslim men are so spineless they are sending their women to perform the labour of protesting, when in fact the ground reality suggests otherwise. I witnessed, during my last three visits, an unprecedented display of gender solidarity and respect among Muslim men and women. For instance, as I waited for the man who was serving tea from a kettle into paper cups to the Muslim women ahead me in the central nave in front of the stage, I heard him tell them how they have inspired him as he congratulated them for the important work they were doing.
It has become abundantly clear that women and marginalised communities have been compelled to take upon themselves the task of dismantling and smashing the institution of brahminical patriarchy. For centuries, we have been exposed to how the intersection of caste, race, and gender oppression coupled with capitalism has been detrimental not just to our desire for empowerment and agency, but to the continued survival of the human species. For now, we have a clear-sighted immediate goal. We must counter the divisive, fascist, brahminical patriarchal enterprise that is Hindutva ideology by upholding the values enshrined in our Constitution. We must resist the politics of hatred in lieu of building a more inclusive society premised on genuine solidarities and bound by a spirit of radical togetherness.
Deliberating on the life and times of Everywoman, Rosalyn D'Mello is a reputable art critic and the author of A Handbook For My Lover. She tweets @RosaParx Send your feedback to mailbag@mid-day.com
The views expressed in this column are the individual's and don't represent those of the paper
Catch up on all the latest Crime, National, International and Hatke news here. Also download the new mid-day Android and iOS apps to get latest updates
Subscribe today by clicking the link and stay updated with the latest news!" Click here!
