PSYCHOLOGY FOR INDIA

ASSIGNMENT II
SAISHA
SKP172E0421
BA PSYCHOLOGY (H)
Inner Experience Of Caste
By Sudhir Kakar
(from the book “The Indians”)

Summary

The text starts with the classification of caste that how it is divided into four types and how every type is
based on the educational specialization tool. He discusses about the two tools Jaati and Varna which have
always been used interchangeably. Varna is a symbol division of Hinduism I.e, Brahmin, Kshatriya,
Shudhras and Vraishyas but when it comes to Jaatis, it’s much more. It’s a total social relation followed by
defining castes, Kakar talks about how despite of some changes, the caste practice is still very prevalent is
India, specially when choosing one’s spouse and also in one’s friendships. He then talks about how when a
child is born, without even reading the religious texts, before even thinking about it the child will observe it
through the practices being followed around them by their elders. So from there he gathers his understanding
of the right and wrong. So its when once we become aware of our caste identity, whatever that caste identity
gained through this history, through years of caste living - will be internalised by the child as well. Next he
explains the caste hierarchy and its associated discrimination is not a Hindu phenomenon which he explains
by addressing the Sikh community, Christianity and Islam, how among the Indian muslims, the noble
muslims as Ashrafs and Ajlafs and Arzals which shows that it has been practiced differently in different
religions, cultures and different states of India. So despite of several protests and movements, these issues
still prevail in the society, more prevalent in the rural area and subtle in the urban areas because in our
psyche, it’s about the dirt and pollution which has been associated to them. The association of thins related
to Dirt in India are different from what they consider dirt in the western culture. Here we consider
everything which comes from our body as a byproduct of what’s happening inside it as dirt, this is also the
reason behind why spitting is not considered a public offence in India and also farting in public is allowed
and also in many families the person in power position can fart in public without any resentment. Then he’s
comparing it with western world experiences giving a comparative analysis specially when discussing the
fantasy of purity and pollution.

Critical Review
We all are experiencing caste, we all have our own endocentric experience of caste. While reading, the
experience is different for all of us depending upto which extent we can relate to the heirarchy of our society
based on oppressing the inferior or if we are too privileged to have been in the majority or the upper social
strata to not have come across this disbalance.

The history of our experiences, some of our experiences are not our experiences which we have in our
lifetime, some of our experiences are experienced by our forefathers past generations and it will
automatically pass on to us. So we have to carry those loads as a baggage. Whether be positive or negative,
we don’t have an escape from it. Along with our own life experiences, we have to carry these baggages as
well as Kakar gives an example that when one shows aggression in slightly provoking situations that might
be coming out of your previous generations caste experience like also in the documentary when a middle
class father living in an urban city has to get his son admitted to the school, when he talks about it we can
see how fierce his expressions are when he talks about it and says that he won’t be putting his child in
school under the SC/ST category further comparing his child to state the point that there’s no difference
between his child and the kids of the upper caste people as they all have the same brains, here he is
projecting the experience of history of the oppression and discrimination that generations of his community
has gone through which he doesn’t want his child to face and so he says that he won’t mention their caste to
the school authorities and his child will study as a general caste.

Then Kakar talks about the oppressed practices which have been there for plenty of years and are still
prevalent and the psyche here reflects how some are getting the kick in the strata from the higher castes -
being oppressed and then their psyche is reflecting it by the oppressed further oppressing and kicking the
ones who’re inferior to them in their strata in order to feel superior, their is no end to the divisions leading to
inferiority, just when you think this community is inferior, one can find a group inside that particular
community which is inferior and being oppressed by the superior members of that oppressed community.

Next he explains the caste heirarchy and its associated discrimination is not a hindu phenomenon which he
explains by addressing the sikh community, christianity and islam, how among the indian muslims, the
noble muslims as ashrafs and ajlafs and arzals which shows that it has been practiced differently in different
religions, cultures and different states of India. But in hinduism it is more rigid as compare to christianity,
sikhism and islam where it is very fluid and not so rigid as for example the inter caste marriages are more
prevalent in other religions than in hinduism.

This is the reason which led to mass coversions as the lower castes felt they’ll get more superiority when
they convert thmeselves to islam, buddhism, sikhism, christianity, etc. It’s something which Ambedkar
himself did as well also asking others to do it, several people have had several reasons for their conversions.
Mostly these conversions have less o do with the belief systems and ideologies of that religion but more to
do with the materialistic gains and in case of the lower castes it is to gain superiority status.

Next Kakar talks about how the untouchables have been and are still being treated by the uppercaste people
like even thier shadows are considered to be impure as it can also be seen as explained in the annhilation of
caste and portrayed in the documentary.

Caste system is based on varna division ie job division, some jobs are considered as pure while some jobs
are considered as polluted. Polluted, here refers to the lower castes and lower strata jobs which are expected
to deal with dirt and others waste like cobblers, manual scavenging, cleaners, sweepers, etc. Such jobs are
considered as the most polluted ones. Whereas preaching, educating others and participating in a war, etc are
considered as pure with the purest being that of Brahmins.

So despite of several protests and movements, these issues still prevail in the society, more prevalent in the
rural area and subtle in the urban areas because in our psyche, it’s about the dirt and pollution which has
been associated to them, According to a reasearch conducted by Alan Dundees it’s about the hindu mindset
to human excreta which we consider as dirt which we push out of our body, so cleaning that is not our job, it
is considered as someone else’s job as it is considered dirt, so if one cleans it themselves, they get polluted
and the lower caste people are assigned for that job and they’re considered polluted because they are always
in interaction with these pollutants, they’re always in touch with this dirt and so they’re themselves “dirt”,
hence considered untouchables - this is the idea of the society, so if you touch them you will also get
polluted. This is why our society is still castiest.

Knowingly, unknowingly we sometimes do practice it. As it can be seen in the documentary that it is a very
evident practice and in rural areas how in the schools the masters still discriminate amongst students on
basis of caste and lie cold bloodedly when confronted.

We don’t have an escape from it, yes maybe we can change our practices that is there with our individual
psyche but we cannot ignore that being born and brought up in this culture and in this society has affected
us, we all are affected by it, we’re all witnesses and looking at this we are all in a way victims of it. And also
our future is a double edged sword, it is in our hands and we can change it in whatever way we want,
outcomes can be both positive and negative.

India Untouched : Stories Apart

-By Stalin k.
Summary

India Untouched - Stories of a People Apart is a documentary made by Stalin. K., where he travels to eight
different states with four common religions as he documents various perspectives of discrimination and
untouchability in India. The documentary revolves around various intriguing dimensions of untouchability
as one gets to see the same phenomenon occuring in a variety of contexts and domains. The film is a pretty
powerful depiction of the ongoing crime against humanity of the lengths of injustice which the
Untouchables are going through in the democratic “DEVELOPING” nation which spurs a rage of emotions
in the individual watching it as one can feel the pain and humiliation on this side of the screen upon
watching the same faced by innocent people based on something which they have no control over on the
other side of the screen. The documentary starts with bursting the bubble of the nation that untouchability is
limited to hinduism as the discrimination against the out castes can also be seen all other 3 religions I.e
sikhism, Christianity and Islam which are considered as having no such concept of caste. The film
showcases the pervasive domination of the upper castes that often hinders with the judicial systems as well,
like in the case of the Rajputs asking the police to first consult them before taking an action against their
community as if they’re the ones who are supposed to handle the law and order of the nation. And along
with it we get to see the oppressed in a haunting situation because of the dirt which they have bestowed
since generations and generations on grounds of religion. Inbetween we also get the narrative of the sick
logics given by the so called spiritual heads who are considered to be on the top of the hierarchy but are
filled with nothing but filth and pollution from inside, taking their stand on casteism and untouchability,
they’re the actual dirt who need to be brushed away. Moving further with my summary before I get carried
away with my emotions, the documentary derails any presumptions that one living in urban area might have
that oh caste discrimination is so 90s and such a rural phenomenon as it can even be seen in the most
prestigious institutions of India such as JNU. Discrimination can also be seen in the realm of education
where dalit kids are made to clean everything including the school toilets and not just that also they’re made
to sit either outside the class or the last row. The documentary shows the urgent need to find a way for the
demolition of caste.

Critical Analysis
What hits hard, specially in this part of the documentary above is not what the kid is saying, but the way in
which he’s saying it, that smile on his face - with so much of innocence he just casually smiles and says
those lines like it’s a no big deal. It’ about the expressions on his face while saying all of it which is
dreadful, haunting and sick. What’s worse than the idea of being a victim is the thought of one not even
getting a chance to acknowledge themselves as a victim. Not chance but right, they’re not even given the
‘right’ to acknowledge themselves as victims - this is scary and extremely disturbing.

As far as the depiction of the theme considered I think the documentary fully justifies caste themes depicted
in the form of highly accurate examples from various parts of the country. It includes the villages and towns
of the south, the north and western country and even larger metro. What I found different in this
doccumentary was that it took into picture all those scholars of banaras - he so called brahmin priests who
interpret hindu scripture ‘Manusmriti’ whichi accprding to them interprets as dalits having lack of even the
basic human rights such as right to education ad water from common wells and when this doesn’t seem
enough, tasks considered dirty for the upper caste are forced upon them like manual scavenging and
collecting dead bodies of animals along with everything else which is considered filthy and impure.

According to me, the documentary has been very well developed with a basic cinematography with
spiltting of screen at intervals to keep it at bay from being monotonous. It does complete justification
in illustrating the theme with well recorded incidents. For me, personally I was completely unaware of
these practices of untouchability being practiced in our nation to this extent. Though despite of living
in a modern city and belonging to a backward caste, I myself have personally come across humiliating
situations though they’ve been very subtle which led me to believe that, that’s the only form of
discrimination which prevails but now after looking at this documentary I feel I myself am quite
privilidged to not have been exposed to such extreme lengths of brutality which people of our nation
are going through in this community - it’s extremely sad and inhuman seeing the law enforcers bow
down infront of the uppercaste men who rape and torture the untouchables mercilessly just to prove
their position in the hierarchy. What is unsettling and very demotivating is that this cruel practice is
inculcated in children since such a young age and so strongly through the teachers themselves whose
job is to educate the kids righteously in the direction of development and who have the responsibiltity
on their shoulders to bring aout the revolution through their teachings, themselves being partial and
following the mindset of uneducated. The film deconstructs any false imagination one might have
about caste discrimination being a primarily rural phenomenon, enforced through rituals of purity and
pollution. It is shocking to understand that discrimination is seen even in premier institutions like JNU.
In the light of those incidents, even education isn't getting to eradicate discrimination and
untouchability. The prevalence of discrimination on the lines of caste in states like Kerala - which is
recognized as a progressive state for its cent percent literacy, development and communism - is
astonishing. It is shocking to understand that even now during this so-called globalised world, Dalits
are being denied a basic right like being allowed to fetch water from public wells.

The narrative likewise shows that it isn't so the religions other than Hinduism have stayed immaculate
with the issues of untouchability and hierarchy. It exposes the continuation of hierarchical practices
and untouchability in Sikhism, Christinity and Islam and among the Socialists in Kerala. Even within
the Dalits there is a preset of untouchability practiced by sub cast against lower sub casts, like a
Harijan refuses water from a Valmiki. In this way all these accounts made me understand the voids and
its ill in the Indian society which we all feel so proud of. A section on how newspaper matrimonial
columns are divided consistent with caste presents urban Indians with an uncomfortable truth:
marriage is that the overt of casteism in India. And hierarchy is it’s core sentiment another striking fact
is that most of the people from lower castes also believe that they are subordinate and accept their
situation. Perhaps, it reflects the ideologies and lack of power in hierarchy. Land, one of the major
sources of power in rural areas, is distributed very unsymmetrically as also narrated in the incident by
Arundhati Roy in her Essay - The doctor and the Saint . Also, political power which is reflected in
terms of number plays a very important role in aviolence or in the elections. Therefore, the most
powerful caste is generally the most populous. Caste system is mainly based on the concept of purity
and impurity, which has been permanently destined. Such division drastically affects ‘life chances’. All
these facts are very evident within the way the whole documentary has been narrated.

The film is extremely illustrative and has been an eye opener about the inflexibility and shallow
mentality of our society. Stalin has put best efforts to showcase the plights and oppressions faced by
the people belonging to lower castes and therefore the got to provide reservations for the upliftment of
such people. Also, the best part of the craft is that it focusses on India as a whole showing the existence
of untouchability throughout the country and in all religions.The entire documentary has clearly been
made with a professional reservation mindset and has focused mainly on plights of lower castes.
Although, whatever has been presented is extremely accurate but there are other aspects also
which haven't been touched perhaps to take care of the integrity of the theme. From my experiences

Another aspect on which the documentary could have improved is that it could have focused more
upon the discrimination against the lower castes within the urban metropolitan areas. Most part of the
documentary focuses mainly on the rural areas. It would have created a more powerful impact  and
other people would have connected more had the documentary involved the urban areas more.
Focusing more on the urban Dalit problems would have made people realize that education
alone isn't sufficient to mitigate such evils. Nevertheless, overall the documentary  I feel has been
a great piece of cultural craft and deserves appreciation.

Annihilation of Caste
By B R Ambedkar

Summary

This is written by Dr. B R Ambedkar and it is an undelivered speech which he prepared for a program where
he was invited by Jat Pat Todak Mandal as the President, and it was supposed to be conducted in Lahore in
1936. But the invitation was canceled later and Ambedkar decided to publish it, so it’s a self published book.
He published it on 15th May 1936.

In the first part, he is problematising his invitation to this meeting, organised by Jat Pat Todak Mandal and
he is wondering that how they could invite him. And Jat Pat Todak Mandal is a social reform organisation
according to Ambedkar. He is in support of Social Reforms. What confuses him is that the mandal is
dominated by upper caste people and ambedkar is someone who was criticising hindus terribly and the upper
caste hindu practices ie hinduism and another reason was that he was critical of Gandhi’s stand which the
upper caste hindus were in support of as Gandhi was the ideal of freedom and political reform for these
upper caste hindus at that time. And the last reason being that Ambedkar is untouchable and he belongs to
the untouchable community. These are the three reasons he quoted, the mandal house had these three
reasons for not inviting him, but they still invited him so he is foreseeing that the mandal will be questioned
for this step which they’re taking by the upper caste hindus and he was wondering how mandal will be
solving it. And also if he goes, his supporters - the untouchables and those who support his movements and
ideas will be unhappy about his speech, ie if he delivers this speech in the mandal’s conference. Then he
himself says that he doesn’t want to either, he has never wanted to go to such platforms but he’s doing it and
then he tries to justifies his decision by saying that he accepted the invitation just because he supports this
Mandal’s course of action ie social reform.

In the second part he is explaining why social reform, what the idea of social reform was at that time. In
indian society, why the idea of social reform could not get much acceptance and attention, the idea of
political domain was resonating over social reform - why did this happen? According to ambedkar, social
reforms should have a presendence over political reforms and by political reforms what he means is the
swadeshi movement (which was getting lot of acceptance from the indians and indian freedom fighters who
were fighting for the power to rule on land which was under british rule and the power coming here in
picture was political power to govern) and by social reforms he means reforming the social structure by
reorganising and changing social practices so basically it was about social change then he explains the
history, starting from the formation of the national congress and the social conference. The national congress
later converted to a political reform organisation and the social conference later formed to social reform
party. Initially these two were joining hands and supporting each other and they were even sharing single
platforms but later NC took to form national political reform and they started giving more importance to
political power and social reform party took the direction of social reform but that social reform was
something ambedkar is critical of because it was limited within the family reform of hindus. So in the
second part, he problamatizes these two things and towards the end he says why political reform party got
more acceptance and how did that win over social reform party - here acknowledging his vast knowledge on
world history, economics and indian society, which formed his psyche - he connected our indian social
condition of that time towards the end of british rule to different situations worldwide from his point of view
and experiences in various nations such as Italy, Rome, etc so talking about all the social situations he is
trying to compare. Through political reforms, social reforms will come but Ambedkar is saying that social
reform should come first and then the political reform should follow that, his argument is that this should go
hand in hand. This way he problamatizes Indian society and the social order there, giving instances to
support his statement that why our indian society is not well equipped for a political reform as his argument
is that our society is not efficient enough to go for a political reform so he is saying, we should address all
the social evils, before demanding for a political rule.

In the third part, he is problematising the “idea” of socialism ie the way indian socialist try to implement the
idea of socialism which is born in westernism and how indian socialist simply try to implement those ideas
of those ideas of socialism in our indian context, neglecting the indian social issues. The first and foremost
issue he found with indian socialists of that time is that they are focusing on economic equality or economic
revolution and private property, so their focus is on money and they’re saying through economic revolution
we will experience social revolution as well so their foremost focus is on money, wealth and private
property. But indian scenario is very different having a strong leaning towards religion. Religion has a deep
rooted history in the indian society and if it has a deep rooted history in indian society then it will have a
deep rooted history in indian psyche as well, which is what our cultural psychology talks about that the idea
of religion is deep rooted and that is what is governing our psyche and behavior for which he takes examples
from Islam, Hinduism and History like how the indian revoltuionaries religious revolution first and also how
prophet led religious revolution first before going for political reform. So through these he criticises how
indian socialists are doing political reform. He believes that only upon addressing the social evils (religious
evil being hinduism) will one be able to emerge from our religiosity.

In the first three parts, he has very beautifully given the background with utmost clarity and most coherent
way. In the fourth part, he addresses the structure and nature of caste system directly, which are both very
problematic. And this has been expressed in both the other materials as well. The nature is based on division
of labour ie the idea of caste system is division of labour. But Ambedkar argues that the division of labour is
the feature of all the societies around the world. In the division of labour through caste system the choice,
spontaneity and the idea of aptitude is violated as it’s only based on discrimination and hierarchy of power
and status, caste and class are very closely linked in indian context which makes the justification of division
of labour false, caste system is a flawed phenomenon for division of labour to occur. Second comes the
structure which too is flawed as if a lower strata person tries to climb up the ladder to achieve the upper
strata status through his aptitude and skills, the caste system paralysis him from doing so. And it’s not just a
division of labour but the division of labourers based on status and power which makes it cruel and against
the law.

Critical Review

Here varna system is used as a tool for oppression because of which lower caste people joined the movement
and still it is a tool of oppression as the documentary of stalin k is not very old, the degree has decreased
slightly that too because of there struggles, reforms, protests and sacrifices of these oppressed people. And
ambedkar was a catalyst which he still is and the questions which he proposed then are still very relevant
which shows that the condition hasn’t really improved much. Ambedkar is very relevant and that’s why
even at that time the upper caste hindus were trying to appropriate him, we have our college on his name,
JNU’s main library is named after him - it’s all because he is a symbol of appropriation.

In the documentary the present indian scenario, he is depicting the caste practices in different levels and
states of india and here Ambedkar in the second part mentions the Maratha situation under peshwa rule
when untouchables could not walk on the public roads on which upper class walked as it was thought that
they’ll pollute it. Then he talks about the Balai community in Indore released a list of demands and rules,
saying that if the balai community wants to stay among the upper caste hindus then they have to follow very
strict norms which are very disturbing to hear like they cannot wear gold or coloured dhotis, their women
cannot wear jewels , they can’t wear any other luxuries, they cannot demand their labour charge, they should
take whatever they get from upper caste people etc. Many similar examples can be seen in Stalin’s
documentary as well. And these thing are happening now as well but our eyes aren’t wide open to recognise
it and also we need to acknowledge that ignoring it is a privilege which we’re all getting which we need to
realise.

Then ambedkar talks about the communal award, a seperate electrate. In a huge debate between gandhi and
ambedkar where he asked for seperate electrate, in a way dalits also embodied and internalised their status
so it is very difficult for them to come and lead the election so if we give vote, they will be giving vote to the
upper caste religion so again they’ll be ruled by the upper castes. To avoid this, ambedkar’s idea was a
seperate electrate, so the dalits should get two votes, right to vote twice. One is to vote normaly and one
being only for dalits where they’ll only vote for a dali leader. The vote being for common constituency. But
Gandhi ji negated it and went against it and went on hunger strike so eventually Ambedkar had to give up.
Sudhir kakkar discusses these same issues in a different way. He explains all these things and how the issue
of purity and pollution is interalised and how internal mind embodied the idea of purity and pollution.

The major problem lies with the class system, but in indian scenario social issues are totally different and
they’re not directly connected to class system in many context, like caste system which cannot be equated
with class system as features and it’s functioning are very different. Social reform should have more
resonance so once one needs to address the social evils, only then will one be able to address all other things,
for example if caste issue was resolved and Ambedkar was given equal importance and status along with his
counterparts and upper castes he could have easily achieved the economic status, but he was not able to do
that and looking at the present scenario, a very good job where people are from different castes and different
economic strata, getting equal salary they still won’t have equal social status despite of sharing equal
economic status.

Most of the things which he talked about in these four parts, he emphasized a lot on the issue of upper class
hindus who were in power who degraded all the jobs which the lower classes were able to do and also who
would look down upon anything which the lower castes would do just to set the inferiority barrier which we
still see persisting in the society. In all of his four parts he’s trying to tell how our minds are casteist and at
that particular time, even the political reform leaders were casteist and even that was not consciously, some
of them weren’t consciously casteist but it was part of their culture which they couldn’t escape and
ultimately they became casteist since there was no self reflection on that so critically they could not witness
it. When we talk about cast system and patriarchy, when we problematise all the bad features of the society
or our psyche, we need to acknowledge that we are all born in this culture so by birth this is something
which we imbibe. But that doesn’t mean that it gives us the excuse to sit back relaxed with eyes closed like
we are helpless because we know that’s not true. We need to develop critical conscience in each and every
moment and keep questioning ourselves, and in order to gain that critical thinking we need to first
acknowledge our privileges.

Reflective Essay

All of these three materials, revolve around one term “caste”. About how this term has practiced throughout
our history and in our present time as well. It has always been considered as a cultural practice instead of
being called an individual practice as it has become a strong part of our culture and has indulged with
everything in even the tiniest of things in our life that it’s difficult to even acknowledge that we practice it
as it’s rooted in such micro parts of our society and culture that it’s no longer distinguishable. And as it is
part of our Indian culture, so as per our theories of cultural psychology this is surely to influence our mind
and our psyche, how this practice has been shaped, developed and evolved also it still continues to evolve.
So the million dollar question is - “who is the agent of it?”. who is it’s agent here in our society, and the
answer is “us”. we all, us humans, we are the agents here. It’s none other than our psyche, our psyche is
responsible for creating it, developing it, practicing it, reshaping it and continuing it and for all the protests
being held against it - that too comes from our psyche only, coming out as a reaction to it I.e from our
psyche it is coming out as a reaction to what has been created by our psyche. And this is the dialectic
relationship between our psyche and the caste system which prevails in our culture. We (our psyche) are in
a dialectical relationship with this cultural practice for a longggggg time and now we are reacting to it in a
variety of different ways based on their psyche developed by their life experiences of living with it, like
some people are following it and some people are breeding it while some people are also voicing against it
in different different manners like protesting against it and leading and being part of several moments in
it’s protest. And also there is reaction through our behaviour because our behaviours are a reaction of our
psyche like how we behave towards a certain scenario, here these are all different ways of reaction and
with these reactions of our psyche, this cultural practice has been reshaped and undergone many changes
over past decades. This dialectic relationship is not static, it is still continuing and these practices are again
influencing our psyche in different ways. These practices have been going on in different parts of our
country and different states in different different ways as can be seen in the documentary as well, in cities
it’s a little more subtle and has strong opposing reactions which aren’t shut by the people in power due to
excessive exposure and media coverage while in backward and rural areas the exploitation is far more due
to the lack of law enforcement and lack of media coverage, while the reactions can be seen by Dalits
protesting for their rights there as well but their voices are shut down brutally through inhuman ways like
burning, raping, mutilating, etc because like I said there is lack of law enforcement as agencies such as the
police also act like a puppet for the people belonging to upper casts and there is very little to no media
coverage. Then when we locate these activities in Indian context, then they become a part of Psychology
for India.
In these materials which I have reviewed, the authors, the directors, the writers and everyone else involved
including Ambedkar sir, they’re all trying to explain it all from their standpoints in different ways with
Sudhir Kakar being more supportive to Gandhi’s philosophies (which I find a little off putting) and not
even mentioning Ambedkar most probably because there’s marketing factors involved and it’s from a
selling point of view but that can’t neglect the amount of information and his psychoanalytical
enlightenment which he has put upon the issue. While even in these materials, thought there are different
perspectives of these authors, and they are problematising it in different ways as it comes from their
experiences and encounters with these cultural practices which is a product of their individul psyches
reacting to it and after coming across those with a critical mindset this reflection which I’m writing right
now is the reaction of my psyche to all of their’s based on my experiences with this cultural phenomenon
which is mind boggling, but despite of all this, similarities can also be seen between these, like the
narratives which Arundhati Roy gives in her essay “The doctor and the saint” and Ambedkar in his speech
and so does Sudhir Kakar when he explains the idea of “dirt” and how it emerged, while the documentary
brings these narratives into life by giving visual representation to what we read in the other two materials
which is about this cultural practice and how it’s affecting the lives of innocent people. This is where the
individual psyches share similar ideologies for how it initiated and developed over years with their
reactions coming out from their psyches to this same scenario which they all agree to, being different
because of their upbringings and experiences with this social issue and their experience with it in their lives
which gives them a different and unique perspective (psyche) to look at it based on their life experiences.

Then there is a universal fantasy of dirt being associated with black, black is something which is polluted
and it’s not nice and it’s evil and fairness is considered as beauty and positiveness. In India it is more
prominent as it was the whites who ruled us so it has been imbibed in us that whites are more powerful,
more wealthy, higher status and everything so they’re considered superior and we are on the darker side of
complexion so dark is not good it is inferior so our obsession with whiteness is huge that’s why India has a
huge market for whitening products unlike any other country. In inaugral ceremonies, lighting a lamp is
considered as auspicious as it represents the idea of removing darkness with bringing light so darkness is
something which should be removed and lightness is something which is good, it is there in our minds. So I
was listening to a lecture from philosopher Alan Watts in which he talks about this obsession with white
and light while the fear and evil associated with dark, what we all fail to recognize is that without the black
and the hollow darkness, the light cannot exist. How will one identify light if they didn’t know what
darkness is, it is as beautiful and as important and light. As he says that we cannot appreciate the convex
without the concave and the firm without the yielding. Sadly we are living in a culture that fails to notice it.
He states some examples like, “our attention fixes itself upon figures and ignores backgrounds. We see a
painting, a representation of a bird, and do not notice the white paper underneath it. We see a printed book
and assume what is important is the printing and that the page doesn't matter”. continuig it he tells that if
we think critically about this whole thing, how could there be the printing without that paper beneath it?
We consider the underlying position, like the missionary position, as always to be inferior. But to be
underlying is to be fundamental. The word substance refers to that which stands underneath (sub -
underneath and stance - stands). To be substantial is to be underlying, to be the support, he says further that
if it was not for black and empty space, there would be no possibility whatsoever of seeing the stars. Stars
shine out of space and astronomers are beginning to realize that stars are a function of space. Now this
seems contrary to our common sense because we think that space is simply nothingness, and do not realize
that space is completely basic to everything. The darkness, emptiness and blank is what is the foundation of
the world. So Black and dark aren’t evil but in a way they prove the existence of white and light in our
lives and it’s vice versa, just like yin and yang. It’s something to be embraced instead of being called dirty
and evil. And if we look at it that way, even the dirt and evil isn’t bad, it’s all about how we experience a
certain thing because all these words have come out from our psyche and then our experiences associated
with these words have shaped our reactions to them and it’s again an ongoing process.

Through my experiences I’ve made sure to not to use that surname against my name as I’m not someone
who is to be judged or percieved by the name which I carry but by my intellect and deeds, and that’s what
we all deserve, every human out there. My mother holds a different opinion as she says that do something
jo tere “kul” (the community to which you belong) ka naam raushan kare but I feel here that even if a
thousand Saishas come and do something good and seen if hypothetically te kul’s reputation is brought up,
I don’t see any point after it. Like what next? What good does it do to us except for boosting an imaginary
status which comes by defining people in a community based on some names known as castes. What I
don’t understand is how can some people’s good doings / bad doings label everyone in a community? And
it’s not something limited to castes but even as a bigger picture, whether it be the identity based on religion
or on country or the continent, what good does this identification has ever done to the human kind except
for dividing people and creating hatred? I’m in love with Ambedkar’s idea of abolishing the system of both
religion and castes as if one has no such thing to identify with except for humanity, the existing notions
leading the discrimination will demolish as the only community existing will be humanity. For the mental
peace and satisfaction of having a group to relate, why can’t we relate to all of us on the basis that we’re all
humans? Caution: I might be bringing a little of spiritual thought here but that’s something which I find to
be logical and so I’ll anyways state my point, looking at the gigantic picture, the earth in itself is a tiny tiny
dot, not even a dot when we bring the entire UNIVERSE into picture and no one knows how many such
earths may or may not exist, so my point is looking at the universal picture, we humans on earth are
extremely magnificently small community which I think can make feel anyone close to any other specie,
not just human but specie living on this planet, why can’t we all identify ourselves to this community to
make ourselves feel the closeness and belongingness which these sick divisions created over the history
make us feel because more than making us feel positive, they give us negativity and capture our psyche in
such a complicated manner that makes us evil without even us realizing at the core levels until we face the
negative consequences of it.