The Parai, a musical instrument dating back to ancient times, is used by the south Indian population. Many different Parai instruments have many social uses. Research into its uses, at times through Tamil literature, reveals how different social groups’ use of the Parai related to the specific social structure that existed at a given time.

When the caste system solidified, the Parai became identified as the instrument of a particular caste, called ‘Paraiyar’ in Tamil (it has a different name in Telugu, for example). Although the term ‘Parai’ retained some of its earlier meaning of ‘communicate’ in the Tamil and Kerala languages, the term Parai under the caste system began to travel to a number of other languages including English.

This is why we oppose the use of ‘Pariah’ in English – although the term is mostly used by English speakers with no knowledge of how it’s linked to abusive terminology. Raising awareness of caste oppression among western populations is vital to combat the discrimination that is taking place among the south Indian Diaspora.

In India, the Parai instrument is now used by various Dalit groups as a symbol of struggle – a symbol of freedom. One such group based in Tamil Nadu is called “Puthar Kalaik Kulu” (Buddha Art Forum). The emergence of Buddhism in India has long been linked to the fightback against the caste system that is rigidly maintained by Hinduism.

Dr BR Ambedkar, who challenged the caste system in the fight for Indian independence and after, employed various methods in his attempts to defeat caste discrimination. He even tried to convert oppressed caste people to Buddhism. This tradition still remains, and a number of Dalit groups take up Buddhism to try to fight back. Sadly, Buddhist-linked states, such as in Sri Lanka or Burma, actually seek to crush all attempts at resistance by oppressed minorities in those countries.

Nonetheless the Buddha Art Forum in Tamil Nadu has done inspiring work – raising the Parai instrument as a symbol of struggle. They don’t use this instrument at funerals, as the caste tradition has it; instead they play it at weddings, particularly mixed marriage weddings. This helps to promote awareness against caste oppression. At the same time this group vehemently opposes the atrocities that are taking place in Sri Lanka in the name of Buddha and have played Parai in many Tamil left ‘nationalist’ meetings.

Inspired by this, a group of youth in London also took up this instrument as a symbol of struggle. Under the name “Parai – Voice of Freedom” (P-VOF) they began to use the instrument at various events. This group however did not emerge with any particular identity. It is also informed by the use of ancient instruments by the African population at political meetings in London. The youth saw Parai as a Tamil instrument – and as a symbol of freedom – and wanted to popularise it as a freedom symbol in the west. They were totally aware of the caste connotation; however, for them the Parai is not only an instrument of ‘caste liberation’.

As I understand by talking to them, they see that they are reclaiming this instrument (‘weapon’ as they put it) from a dominant ‘Aryan-Brahminical Hinduism’ which oppressed all what is ‘Dravidian’ (or Tamil) and maintained ‘untouchability’. This is also not an organised group, and the Parai playing is open to anyone interested, including to those from a ‘Brahmin’ caste as long as they shared a similar conviction – ie the need to campaign for liberation against national oppression, caste and all other discrimination. They did not ask the caste background of those who wanted to play. They also didn’t ask which part of Sri Lanka or India they came from (north, east, south, etc). Playing is also open to Africans and whites.

The Paraiyar caste in both India and Sri Lanka has a tremendous history of struggling to break with the insult unleashed on them by oppressors. It wasn’t that they didn’t like the instrument, on the contrary it’s a proud possession. But they were forced to use it in an insulting way at funerals and other events that re-imposed the oppressing caste domination. They fought back against this insult. There are many examples.

Incidents also took place in the areas that the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam), who fought the war with the Sri Lankan state for separate Tamil homeland, controlled. Although the LTTE did not take decisive action, they managed to ban the use of the Parai in funerals. Due to the history of oppression, some will almost definitely oppose the use of the Parai. This should be understood. When so-called research into caste, or a caste-based ‘act’ takes place, the first to oppose it is not the oppressing caste but the oppressed caste. Those who suffered don’t want to be reminded of their pain and fear, or to have caste oppression re-emphasised. Academics who conduct research are never sensitive to this. In the interest of ‘research’ which shines no additional light on historic truth, they completely exploit the enforced silence of the oppressed masses.

The use of the Parai is no exception. It should invite movement from the oppressed caste. Dalit activists and others are trying to give a different emphasis to this instrument to upset the caste hierarchy (such as playing in weddings). This, however, should not be at the expense of either ‘silencing’ or in spite of the opposition from the oppressed caste. If there is a call from them (not individuals with vested interests, but a movement) to stop – the use of Parai must be stopped. There is no question about it despite whether it is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’.

But calling for a ban on the use of Parai or any other instrument is not an effective action. Neither the caste system nor the use of the Parai in an insulting way will remove themselves from history without a struggle. But there are many ways the fightback can emerge, including through the ‘remodelling’ of the instrument and its role. This, of course, is not going to eradicate caste or insults that the oppressing caste associate with this instrument. Hence why socialists link these actions to the need for a general fightback against all oppression, without which it will be meaningless and like every other fightback, at risk of failing.

Once P-VOF had started to play Parai, however, a certain dissatisfaction began to emerge slowly. Those who promote caste-based oppression in the Tamil community felt totally uncomfortable with the existence of such a group, of course. But the group also attracted ‘liberal’ minded ‘intellectual’ types. However, they were not able to support the youth involved in P-VOF as they saw these young people as ‘nationalist’ – ie the intellectuals considered that P-VOF supported militant struggle for a separate Tamil homeland in Sri Lanka (Tamil Eelam).

These intellectuals, so-called, demanded ‘purity’ in this respect and suggested the group’s name should be changed, rejecting the word ‘freedom’ in particular. The youth refused to budge. Although the Parai is a folk instrument, these young people said their group is not an art group but a political grouping to ‘communicate freedom struggle’. Thus failed the attempt at ‘intellectual appropriation’ of the group.

P-VOF uses the term ‘freedom’ with the widest possible meaning, including freedom from caste oppression. But for those whose sole raison d’etre appears to be opposing the Tigers (LTTE) it has only one meaning. In 2009 the Sri Lankan state carried out a genocidal slaughter of tens of thousands of Tamils. Some in the Diaspora refused to oppose the war completely in the name of opposing the LTTE. These people argued that the butchery of the military conflict could continue as long as the people were left out of it – an utterly wrong and purely utopian wish. Outrageously, they also opposed the massive anti-war movement of youth that took place in London.  Most of the youth who protested outside the British parliament at that time did not have a clear political perspective or goal – but they were united in anger against the Sri Lankan state and clearly and correctly demanded an end to the killings. Since 2009 the understanding of ‘freedom struggle’ is evolving for these young people. Some are beginning to dedicate time to building mass struggle for freedom.

But soon after the war ended in Sri Lanka, pressure began to mount on Diaspora activists. Denunciation of the LTTE was demanded. An intensive post-war report by the ICG (International Crisis Group), for example, denounced Tamilnet as a pure pro-Tiger website. Linked to this attempt to snap the links with the history of the LTTE was a demand that the Diaspora takes the TNA as its leadership and campaigns for reconciliation and equal rights. This pressure continues to this day despite the efforts of Tamil ‘nationalist’ organisations to condemn the mistakes of the LTTE and the calls for a war crimes investigation into both the Sri Lankan state and the LTTE together.

In effect, what the Sri Lankan regime argued, in chorus with pro-capitalist western governments, is that the period of struggle is over. Every single word is aimed at finding a solution through ‘parliamentary political’ means alone – ie endless peace negotiations involving TNA with the Sri Lankan state and with some international mediator playing a role at times. Support for this approach has emerged particularly from those sections of the Diaspora whose sole aim was to oppose the LTTE at the expense of defending the people. Considering themselves ‘intellectuals’, they always had a two-sided approach to opposing the LTTE. One is the atrocious treatment of Tamil-speaking Muslims by the LTTE, and the second is the caste question.

Anyone who desires to pass as an ‘intellectual’ or an artist in the Tamil circles needs to pass this litmus test. Condemnation of the mistakes of the LTTE is not enough, for those who argue for an end to all forms of mass struggle. Some of these ‘progressive’ badge-holders even thanked Rajapaksa for ‘finishing the war’. The Sri Lankan government also exploited this in many ways – particularly in their propaganda outside Sri Lanka. Ex-minister Dayan Jayatilleka, for example, has written and spoken on behalf of the Sri Lankan government –and used similar arguments (caste and Muslim) to attack the ‘Tamil nationalist’ support base and in turn to justify the brutal war.

The Sri Lankan authorities constantly asked why the Tamil Diaspora is only talking about camps in the North – what about the refugee camps in the East where the Muslims, expelled by the LTTE, are still held, etc. The Sri Lankan regime representatives gave a lengthy account of this when I defeated them in a debate in the European parliament over the GSP+ preferential tariff benefits to Sri Lanka. But they refused to acknowledge that serious activists were demanding a complete end to the atrocities being committed by the regime – no matter what population it was against.

The small Tamil ‘anti LTTE’ Diaspora groups are now facing another complex situation. Unfortunately for them, the Sri Lankan regime has now presented itself clearly as the enemy of all Muslims, following the systematic attacks carried out against the Tamil-speaking Muslim population in Sri Lanka. It is clear, even more so now, that this regime is no friend to any minorities or oppressed sections of society; whether it is oppressed caste, or Muslims. The government’s tactics, learned from British Imperialism, of divide and rule stand exposed. The regime’s crocodile tears of speaking out for Muslims and Diaspora the anti-LTTE groups’ attempt to advance a particular interest are all exposed.

This has caused division among the Tamil artists. Regardless to say, those who have carried out vicious anti-LTTE propaganda due to personal reasons still carry on.  They seek to influence and prey on anyone who emerges as a ‘thinking person’ – or who wants to be ‘progressive’. They pounce on the most ‘conservative’ elements of right-wing nationalism and use it to paint all those who are against the Sri Lankan state. On the contrary, various different currents and colours exist among the ‘nationalists’, non-nationalists, and socialists who are vehemently opposed to the current Sri Lankan regime.

This is true among the new generation of young activists too. A majority of the youth have, however, rejected the idea that they will have to denounce everything about the past struggle and build anew. They are open to understanding and correcting the mistakes of the past, but not forgetting it. What direction this will take is not yet clear. There is certainly a push in the leftward direction and a rising left nationalism is notable. In Tamil Nadu the impact is very clear. Many young people are turning towards this or that form of Left Tamil nationalism. A significant section of the TN population is from an oppressed caste background. None of the caste-based political organisations oppose this, instead the Dalit organisations and other organisations based on the oppressed caste criticise vehemently the current Sri Lanka regime. The Buddha Art Forum is among them. And it is from this situation that the P-VOF has come to be.

Since its formation, the P-VOF has expanded its political participation. It has played at a protest against the multinational corporation Vedanta and was enthusiastically welcomed by the organisers. P-VOF members have played at a protest against the killings in Gaza. They are playing in the streets against multinationals such as Tata, Lyca, etc. They also plan to continue to play the Parai at weddings and in the most unconventional places. As far as I understand they are in regular touch with Buddha Art Forum, and get Parai, training and advice from them. Joint activity of these two groups in London cannot be ruled out. But it is inevitable that they will run into attacks. They expected, of course, that the attack would mainly come from the elite and the oppressive sections of the community.

But when they played at the Mullivaikal event – a remembrance of the massacre that ended in May 2009 – some of the so-called ‘progressive’ sections decisively turned against them. This was expressed in a comment made by another young capable man Sinthujan Varatharajah. He saw this as simply a promotion of Tamil culture minus caste. He argued that Tamil culture is a caste culture and wrongly assumed that they may try to ‘de-link’ the Parai from caste violence. He further argued that: “If an upper caste person plays the Parai, it’s an act of appropriation no different to the appropriation of, for instance, Hip Hop by white people”. While busy trying to be clever, he ignored the historical background and paid no attention to the situation that is currently emerging.

We pointed out that the lecture Sinthujan gave to other youth is ‘ill informed’ to start with, lacking basic historical understanding. Activists who try to build a fightback often have to deal with such unfounded criticism from ‘keyboard warriors’. Sinthujan however hit back with a second lecture, this time on ‘what is culture’, and he explicitly spelled out the key reason for his opposition. “The Parai drum was recently taken up by mostly upper and medium caste Diaspora Tamil activists to rally for the Eelam Tamil cause.”

Since he was responding to a socialist, Sinthujan did not hold back from attacking the left in general and attempting to ridicule the activism. His response was full of personal attacks – including framing it as “vellalarwash” – eventually endorsing the attack that it’s a “high caste, high class criticism” supposedly against Dalits. This is typical of those who use some ‘anti-caste’ rhetoric, but in effect do nothing to fight back against this rotten capitalist system that allows caste oppression to continue. Or they actually do things that, if indirectly, nonetheless maintain the status quo. When their understanding and wrong tactics are questioned their immediate reaction is always an emotional cry and gross dismissal of any response as ‘upper caste’ argument.

Leave aside this and other character-assassinating attempts – we will have to address a few theoretical points here.

Race, class, caste and culture

Having “defined” Tamil culture as caste culture, Sinthujan then accused me of understanding Tamil culture as being “single-fold” and called it “violence” and “outright ignorance”. Nowhere have I argued that or defined Tamil culture or any culture for that matter. However breathtakingly hysterical and hypocritical his arguments may be, I will have to repeat one sentence back to him in agreement. “There is no single Tamil culture – and there never was”. We have no interest in ‘defining’ what culture is or to navigate through the definitions and silly phrases of post-modern academia.

As with many other phrases, use of this term, ‘Tamil culture’ in general represents a certain historical evolution of a group with various features. Tamil culture is diverse, as is any other ‘culture’ on the planet. Culture generally reflects the social relations of a particular period which in turn are closely linked to the mode of production that dominate in that particular era. This means culture – or features of culture – is constantly changing and is dominated by those in control of the means of production.  One of the leaders of the Russian Revolution VI Lenin once pointed out that within every nation there are two nations – one the oppressing capitalists, the other the oppressed masses.

The oppressed masses however do not automatically surrender their rights and their learned way of life. But the fightback that emerges defines a new set of relations. This is a vital and most powerful aspect of all society. And this power – the fightback – is what finally ends the domination of social relations dictated from the top by the oppressors.

Culture doesn’t exist in blocks – purified clear divisions don’t exist. This is why when we say English culture, we don’t simply point to Tory culture. What an insult that would be to the English working class. Similarly the racist EDL’s idea that they can uphold the purity of ‘English culture’ is not possible without the capitalists giving the idea credence by divisive language and policies. However, suffering working people can join racist organisations at times when they feel their rights are under threat and when an alternative struggle model isn’t on offer. Then, what strategy can be developed to fight back against the racism of the EDL?

We must first acknowledge what creates the fertile ground for racist ideas to take root – ie the link between the capitalists’ attacks on ordinary people’s living conditions and the emergence of racist organisations. Name-calling the English working class as ‘racist’ will not in any way help to combat the EDL. But organisations and the instruments of the capitalist class – the very forces that are responsible for the deterioration of conditions will lend their lips to the rhetoric of ‘anti-racism’. The reality is that racism cannot be combated in alliance with them – revolutionary forces realise this and put forward a strategy of organisations of oppressed workers and activists to come together independent of the oppressing forces.

Note here that the EDL propagating racist ideas today is different to that of classical ‘fascist’ organisations in that they make all attempts to hide behind the social prejudice of today – and the difficulties that working people face. Racism today is different from the racism that existed at the time of early capitalism. Similarly race discrimination (if I can call it that – as this term is more closely associated with modern racism) during the feudal times is different from the more brutal early capitalist period.

The caste system that exists in the Indian continent differs from racism, although there are a number of lessons we can take from anti-racist movements. Tamils and many other ethnic groups have lived in the Indian continent for thousands of years (Out of Eden by Stephen Oppenheimer and Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond are two good books that give some insight into civilisations and human movements across the world).

Although there existed distinct groups – and you can say they had different cultures – they also shared a number of things. When a more effective and efficient mode of production emerged it generally cut across culture and other divides – and spread. Caste is not a special type of mode of production, though it is in a way linked to the division of labour at its origin. But the caste system also went through and withstood various changes in society.

The caste system as we know now is not the same structural system that existed at its origin or the one that existed before the Hindu revival. Everyone would agree that the Hindu religion should not be ignored as a main factor that held the caste system rigidly (the domination of the Hindu religion in south Asia meant that caste based discrimination continued among other religions too). But research indicates that many ethnic groups (including Tamils) existed before the emergence of the Aryan version of Hinduism. The term Aryan/Dravidian is never used accurately – here it is used this way just to indicate the civilisation generally linked to the arrival of a new group of people. Though there is no conclusive evidence, it’s generally believed that Tamils’ ethnic group lived even before the Hindu civilisation. (Of course with different social structures – some may even have had similarity to caste divisions that emerged later). There were periods when Majority Tamils converted to the Samana religion – a version of Buddhism. Dalit groups in Tamil Nadu take pride in this old ‘Tamil culture’.

There is no way to pinpoint the exact time and date of the origin of a culture or the origin of caste. Academics can debate this to their death. But unless a miracle takes place where everything is revealed like in a movie there is no way of knowing the exact origin and details of changes. Hence decisive conclusions are not possible. We can only look at the processes in history and try to understand its motions and the various forces acting on it. I do not agree that the caste system emerged from Tamils then spread across the Indian continent. We would argue that the caste system does not belong to any particular group or culture. Social structures are not created by ethnicity but by the mode of production into which they enter. Arguing that Tamils created the caste system is similar to that the English created capitalism. Culture is shared, ie an attack on any particular culture is an attack on all including those oppressed.

There are a number of Dalits in Tamil Nadu who see themselves as part of Tamil history ie culture. We cannot also argue that every single ‘culture’ in India is caste culture and needs to be opposed. We cannot also pick and choose and say some cultures are caste cultures. Caste discrimination has omnipresence across cultures across south Asia (and among the south Asian Diaspora). No one particular culture harbours it. Instead we would argue that it’s maintained by those who are in control of the mode of production – capitalist mode of production – and who benefit from it. Of course it’s the capitalists who dominate all cultures in India. We should celebrate the culture of resistance – which of course will bring to the fore the symbols, food, music, other arts and aspects of the oppressed masses’ ‘culture’. Attacking culture to achieve emancipation from caste oppression is based on a utopian dream that somehow cultural domination of the oppressed can be fought without really appropriating the control the oppressors have on our resources. Furthermore, the argument that to fight the caste system, Tamil or any ‘culture’ needs to be fought is a completely ridiculous strategy. This is likely to have the opposite effect, pushing those who would fight oppression to defend their culture and with that their own oppressors.

Take Modi, the current Hindutva prime minister of India – if he goes on the offensive against Tamil culture, will Sinthujan advise a tactical manoeuvre in support of Modi? This is not an abstract question, but a political one.

The political aspect is what concerns us more than abstract academic debates. What is the political consequence of this line of argument? The anti-LTTE section of the Tamil Diaspora still maintains their characterisation of the LTTE as “fascist”. Regardless of the specific definition, what is important is a political consequence. Does using this terminology make the massacre justified – was the war about “killing the fascists” and the rest of the tens of thousands of deaths are ‘collateral damage’?

A generalised attack on an entire people is a dangerous approach to take. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his ilk refused to connect the poverty, unemployment and social conditions (that they bore responsibility for) to the crime rate in places where black people live. Instead Blair blamed crime on a “distinctive black culture”. The current Prime Minister David Cameron follows this line. Labour MP David Lammy used his background as “growing up a black boy and subjected to racism” to try to nail the argument that the riots in 2011 were linked to black rap culture – which was quickly capitalised by a most right-wing nutty professor to theorise how it also affects white boys. The lesson then, in his eyes, is to emancipate the whites from the black culture and of course the blacks themselves if they are up to it. But these people are not inherently “thieves and criminals” as capitalist politicians and their intellectual spokespeople would have it, don’t have an “inner criminality”. Rather the conditions that they are forced to live in breed anger, frustration, disappointment and there is an absence of a clear channel to use that in an organised and coherent fightback. Nonetheless the positive slogan of fighting for “jobs, homes and services” struck a chord and had the potential to unite all the serious fighting elements of the oppressed communities.

In passing we must here comment on Sinthujan’s reference to the “appropriation” of Hip Hop. Should he be referring to white working class youth he is almost in line with the prejudice of afore mentioned historian David Starkey . Many would see Hip Hop as a form of music that originates from those who need to be heard on issues that need to be heard and were otherwise ignored. The threat to Hip Hop is not from white people per se but from capitalist exploiters in the music business regardless of skin colour.

Real leadership is what is missing from various Dalit movements in India. The establishment of a caste-based elitism (like the race industry in Britain) has only benefited a small clan – often coming from the leadership families in each caste group. The formation of caste-based parties actually helped to exclude the anger and opposition, attempting to contain it within these political organisations – the political makeup of which is generally on the right.

We oppose the TNA leadership, not just because they serve the rotten caste discrimination, which they do, but also for their political character. Though they seem to oppose ‘Sinhala nationalism’ they often seek allies in the capitalist UNP. This contradiction will never be understood without class analysis. The politics of the leaders of the caste-based parties is a vital issue in building any serious fightback. While providing lip service in defence of all people they in reality seek allies in the very forces that must be resisted.

Furthermore the fightback of those suffering caste discrimination is made more complicated by the exclusive nature of ‘identity politics’. The term, identity politics, that is often used among the left in India refers to the character of caste-based organisations. These party leaders do not in any way promote the identities and culture of the oppressed. Instead they sell it for their own limited electoral gains. In effect the oppressed masses are reduced to being a mere ‘vote bank’. This phenomenon can be compared to the way so-called community leaders have been created by the so-called multiculturalism project initiated by the Labour party in Britain. In reality community leaders are unelected and unaccountable to the people they are allowed to ‘represent’ and they serve their own needs and the Labour leadership’s.

To deflect criticism right-wing Dalit leaders have become adept at using their caste identity. And of course they also ‘sell’ suffering as their own. They always try to divert the critics as an attack on the caste itself, and try to reduce the substance of the argument to a caste verses caste argument. This dismissal of discussion is not new. EV Ramasamy Periayr noted this oppressive Brahminical method. The left in India in general, faces a barrage of attacks from the right-wing caste-based leaders. Even before the left critics raise a strategy for any sort of class-based programme, their caste will be discovered and used (no matter which oppressed caste they from). From Arundhati Roy, to leading Tamil writers and activists, many faced these sorts of dismissals. This tactic is called ‘identity politics’- ie selling the identity to protect themselves from any possible opposition. But it also creates false hope among the masses that they have no other choice but to rely on these caste leaders for emancipation. This effectively creates an obstacle to the building of a class-based movement on the ground.

However, it must be noted that the left in India is not a homogeneous block. The Communist parties there (CPI(M), CPI) traditionally ignored the caste question and continued to put forward an abstract argument that class struggle will be enough to tackle the caste question which was not enough at all for those who were at the receiving end of this monstrosity. The theoretical position that the eradication of class will start to solve most of society’s problems is correct. But this should not be used to ignore the burning anger and suffering that arises from caste, gender, sexuality and other discrimination.  This was not the case in Sri Lanka where almost all the struggles of the oppressed caste had some sort of left intervention which continues to this day.

Yes, the reforms and rights need to be won. Every move to get additional rights and improving conditions must be grabbed. But the key question is how this can be linked to the fight against the caste system itself. This or that legislation, academic paper about the history of suffering, or the personal accounts of discrimination, though important will not challenge the very foundation of the caste system itself. A number of pieces of legislation exist to ‘prevent’ racism which we welcome. But they have done precisely nothing to challenge the core of racism. The ruling class of course will find their natural allies among the class-collaborating feudal elite in each community and in each caste. This in turn will only benefit those who want to maintain inequality and exclusiveness, for their own economic, prestige and privilege reasons.

Those who have illusions in reforms forget that no reforms are won forever. Everything is subject to change according to the relative strength of the ruling class on one side and the struggling working and poor masses on the other. In Britain, where the so-called democratic revolution is supposed to have been completed, caste discrimination is vehemently protected by the Tories (follow the debate in the parliament about outlawing caste). We must welcome the attempt to include opposition to caste-based discrimination in the legislation in Britain. But it would be wrong to suggest this opens a direct route to the end of caste discrimination. It doesn’t. That is our task as we build the fightback.

Our writing on these issues is in contrast to that of Sinthujan who almost gave an indication that an anti-caste legislative act was formed. Our emphasis will be on the struggle that is to be conducted by the oppressed people and their organisation and the impossibility of achieving justice through a capitalist dominated parliament. (I invite all to read and compare both articles). The disgusting arguments of the Tories, and their consistent delay in passing even a meagre law will remain unexplainable for Sinthujan who chose to ignore the class aspects of the battle against caste discrimination in Britain.

How can a real victory be won in Britain without linking it also to the class battle that we face? The Tory party cannot be lobbied (begged) into obedience on any human rights issues not to mention the caste issue. Here we would propose a strategy of united opposition of natural allies – the trade unions, struggling organisations and socialists and other activists. But we will not see any understanding of trade unions in any material that some of those crave for a ‘progressive’ stamp.

Populist and reformist slogans can inspire hope that immediate solutions can be found and can quickly gain popularity among the suffering masses. Opportunistic defences have a certain attraction and can mobilise people. Some in Britain, for example, say that immigrant workers argue that they are doing the “dirty” work that British workers refuse to do. This line of argument is developed further to defend the immigrant workers against the most right-wing racism hidden Tory/labour/Lib Dem attacks. Among the immigrant community, at the brunt of the right-wing’s attacks, this can gain traction and support. However it will be at the expense of pushing a section of British workers towards the far-right as they would claim they are for jobs –regardless if they are “dirty” or not. Highly qualified immigrant workers and those doing supposedly “dirty” work did not voluntarily surrender to do the work at very low wages, but are forced into it by the system that constantly drives down wages. It will then be absolutely ridiculous if one argue that pointing out the above fact is an “anti-immigration” argument.

Only oppression comes from the top, not change. We must build opposition to the caste system among the ordinary people. If we are to build a serious fightback we cannot be choosy in terms of which oppression we fight against. There can be no exclusivity about who can fight. Every fight against every oppression must be linked together, and it should galvanise all those who are willing to put effort in. Excluding a group of people based on caste or culture is not only wrong, but is also an incorrect political strategy.

The crimes of the oppressors are often forced down on to the shoulders of the masses who continue to face various oppressions. The British working class, for example, should not take the blame for slavery. Instead the empire, the whole establishment, should. It is they who benefited from it. British workers played a part in opposing slavery. But this is almost never mentioned. Instead the race industry is currently serving the establishment and liberals are quick to rally behind the blame game. They do that in the hope of quick gains from being seen as the ‘defenders of blacks’ and fighters against slavery and racism – the badge they award for themselves is in no way progressive when looked at in detail.

Those who serve the caste, class-based oppression must be opposed in any way we can. The Brahminical establishment (which often merges with class-based oppression in India) must be opposed. This does not mean that a Brahmin should not have any say in this matter. Every Brahmin should be welcome to take the fight on, without feeling guilt for their ancestors’ wrong doing, and without being pushed around by liberal attacks. A real fightback can never be the exclusive right of any particular group. Everyone can be developed into a fighter, no matter what caste, class, race, colour they are from as long as they have the conviction, understanding and passion to change the world for the benefit of all. This demands sacrifice and unselfish determination.

Without this vision every development that has a character to develop into something serious will risk being nipped in the bud. Like Sinthujan’s baseless and selfish attack against the P-VOF. Paraphrasing Che Guevara, those who don’t feel the pain of the masses will cease to be revolutionaries – for them their own self-pain and self-promotion will be more important than anything else.

Developing, building, uniting and strengthening the resistance and a political strategy – these are the primary tasks for genuine and serious fighters. The basic points outlined above flow from that. It’s not an intellectual exercise.

Note 1:  Here is some early writings that can be read with above article

MPs refuse to outlaw caste discrimination
 Modi Mela – Post Election Developments -1  There Is Something In The Air In The North Of Sri Lanka  What caused the London riots?  Right wing media and Diane Abbott ‘racist’ comment  கவர்ச்சி அரசியலைக் கவிழ்க்கப் பயமேன்?  இங்கிலாந்தில் சாதிய ஒடுக்குமுறைக்கெதிரான எதிர்ப்பு http://ethir.org/senan/?p=439

NOTE 2: On personal Attack

Maybe for the one whose career it advances

What do you propose that the oppressed caste do? Get educated in Germany and England? Self-liberation – one by one? That might work appear as a strategy for some but to most it is utterly repellent. Oppressed people across Asia and in Britain certainly want comfort in life. Who doesn’t? But how do you propose they get it? Or standing up and fighting in every way they can.

Author Upton Sinclair once said: “It’s difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding.” Please don’t allow this to apply to you.

On Personal attacks

There is a need to separate out the political arguments from mistakes of interpretation and personal remarks.

Choosing to be born into the vellalar caste was maybe not the best way for me to organise my entry into this world. No, hold on a minute. That rotten caste tag was not my choice – but it is something that will remain with me as a dirty mark given the level of oppression and brutality unleashed by this caste on every other oppressed caste.

For this reason I am not new to vellalar bashing – in fact I probably have developed more expertise in it than Sinthujan. About 15 years ago I believed that the vellalar caste deserved a form of collective punishment for the historical horror collectively inflicted. I even believed them unworthy to be considered capable of fighting the caste system. This was due to my own experiences witnessing revolting discrimination. In the village where I was born everyday life was beset by caste discrimination. Then life in India changed me forever – it educated me about caste and class politics.

The strength of my opposition to this rotten system is no less now. But my position in the last 10 years has changed a lot in terms of what tactics I believe we must adopt. This is mainly due to my increasing understanding of Marxist economics, dialectics, etc. But it is also due to my experience of constant debate and discussion on this issue. (Read the recent discussion with Kalachuvadu group). The arguments of the Nirapirikai group in India, one time mentors for me, are now flawed in my eyes. In addition, I see the Dalit movement, so full of potential in its early days, now facing defeat – by the very forces the masses once hoped could lead them away from oppression.

Yes, Sinthujan is absolutely correct to question and approach with caution any ideas and actions that spring from the vellalar caste. But he is not correct to use caste to distract from his own weak tactics and right-wing reformist stance. It is even more wrong to seek a progressive badge by using reformist Dalit politics. Then he will have all socialists as his enemies – regardless of what caste they are from.

What is my identity? Like Socialist Alternative member Kshama Sawant, council member in Seattle, said: “I wear the badge of socialist with honour.” If Sinthujan or anyone wants to use that to attack me – be my guest. I welcome debate on any issues. But take care that you are aiming at me, not the Communist Parties in India or any other organisation (they are easy target of course J).

Accusing me of being a “cultural nationalist” or “upper class” is laughable. However it is also grossly offensive and I hope you take it back.

Marx once commented about the difficulty of expressing complex economic arguments within the limitation of the language. Language indeed is limited when it comes to expression – all artists know this. But for some it’s also difficult to interpret.

I wrote the following “Any thinking person would recognise the obvious flaw – caste oppression is recent history compared to the history of Tamil culture / likewise caste oppression is pan-south Asian rather than just linked to Tamil culture. It isn’t necessary to continue. “

Here it isn’t necessary to continue – it means ‘I don’t want to carry on here with this basic argument’. Please read the above again in the whole remark here (Link). Here is Sinthujan’s interpretation.

“Oh, hear, hear. I stopped counting how many right-wing, centrist and left-wing folks have tried to lecture me on how caste will discontinue with time. I guess similar as to how we will, if we aren’t already, live in a post-racial, post-classist and post-patriarchal society, we will also, one sweet day, reach the age of a post-casteist society. Not by actively doing something, of course. No, we just need to lean back and watch it die. Because that’s how we roll. ”

He is on a roll on this!!! Before you write such nonsense you should have given some thought to it. Did any socialist on the planet argue oppression will just wither away? We even dare to oppose some who think that oppression can be defeated with reforms. It’s offensive to a ridiculous level to falsely accuse socialists who spends most of their time campaign that we cannot win anything without a fight back. This is why we are critical of ‘keybord warriors.

People who always look down on others usually make these sort of mistakes. If you paid any attention at all you could have found this in the comments in my post “my early days of involvement in literature – it is full of fighting against those pretended that caste don’t exist in the diaspora. We need to fight this properly – and this is my main point ”. Either you skipped it – or didn’t bother to read – but based your rant on some imaginative writing I had done. You really do seem to be wishing to find something in me that does not exist – sorry to disappoint.

Now how should I read this – “Tamil Socialist Party member”? Should I understand that you are talking about a party called Tamil Socialist Party? Or should I read it as a Socialist Party member who is Tamil ? Then what is Tamil ? Did I anywhere in my reply define “Tamil culture”? No. But it didn’t stop you giving me a lecture! You had the opportunity to read the comments below my reply – where Krishna Kalaichelvan brought this up – I pointed out to him – I am not prepared to dwell into this in a FB comment. Precisely because too much needs to be explained about it. But thanks for summarising it in your remarks (I honestly thought aspiring ‘academics’ like you may have got over with such playground approach).

I do not see your attack against the left as accidental – or even provoked by this discussion. Certain careerism requires that – attack on the left is a good brownie point.

Socialist activism – keyboard activism

Being a socialist is not the best choice for those seeking an easy life. For example, it’s nothing new for us to be called names. We can find ourselves at the receiving end of attacks because we consistently stand with people who are oppressed in all sorts of ways. But one thing we don’t do is substitute our mere existence for helping to build mass organisations and develop a representative and accountable leadership and a programme to broaden the struggle. That means we don’t just sit and expect the masses to come.

The Left – with various differences in their tactics and perspective -have a lot in common too: We never wait for the saviour – instead we throw ourselves into any struggles that emerges. And try to build the fightback against all forms of oppression. One thing that you cannot accuse the left of is inaction. Action and participation in struggle is ABC for us.

But there are those who want the ‘progressive badge’ – and declare themselves as ‘left’ – and ‘Marxist’ but do nothing but the opposite of what Marx would have argued. Some even try to save Marx from Marx and the Marxists. One person I know famously declared himself as ‘THE Trotskyist’ in Tamil. But when I pointed out to him that he had got it completely wrong – and that he had actually argued the case for Stalinism and an effectively pro-war position during the 2009 war in Sri Lanka – we got no reply back. We will always come out vehemently in opposition to those who claim to be progressive but in reality argue for reactionary ideas.

For your information I agree with you that the oppressors constantly attempt to appropriate oppressed people’s identity, culture, etc. But this is a battle rather than an automated act like you imagine. This is another point you miss while you refuse to understand the essence of my argument.

You call yourself ‘progressive’. Then you attacked the left in general and proposed divisive ideas. That’s when you made an enemy of me.

It is this kind of thing that has given the word ‘progressive’ a dirty meaning.  We will try to reclaim it. No shame in that. Capitalist politicians attempt to use ‘left’ terms and phrases in the hope of building their vote banks, and of giving a fig leaf to their neoliberal, divisive policies. Look at Tamil Nadu and Dravidian politics today. The word revolution had become almost meaningless due to the way it’s been used by the capitalist exploiters. But that was changed completely when the Egyptian and Tunisian masses rose up to remove dictators and reminded the world of what a revolution could be. And yes, there is much more to be done to complete these revolutions. But it shows how language can be changed and reclaimed for truth.

A reactionary’s ability to understand a social movement is very limited –they oppose any movements of fightback. I can list a number of examples. Some vehemently opposed the anti-war protests (in relation to Sri lanka). Some ‘progressive’ friends categorised it as ‘nationalist’. Unfortunately they never participated on any of these protests or talked to anyone at them. Whenever they turn up they show what they are made up of. I remember having a fight with one such person outside the Sri Lankan embassy when we organised a protest against Lasantha’s killing. They argued against us – because they wanted to only condemn the death – not to raise a slogan against the Sri Lankan state as we did.

I am absolutely proud of being socialist but will also take every identity that is oppressed. My record of writing vehemently against ‘Tamilness’ in the past stands but I did not hesitate to take that identity when the massacre took place in 2009. Meanwhile the keyboard warriors didn’t even use the keyboard to oppose the war. Outrageously, but also heartlessly, they claimed they cannot say anything about a ‘conflict between two militaries’ and restricted themselves to calling for the release of the people – but that’s a different discussion.

I fear you are going in that direction. But if you are to change – ie try to be a real progressive – not to go against any oppressed for this or that reason – then I will be on your side. This is not a request for you to join a party – don’t understand this in crude way – and it’s not a dig at you. I really mean it. I know well the value of every single socialist fighter. If you are against the left – just say it loud. No need to take the long route.

Lastly, I noted that you say you are not prepared to ‘waste time’ on the likes of us. But I write this anyway. Political debate on such fundamental questions is never wasted if it is entered into with a genuine wish to produce a step forward for the struggle and clarification on the issues. One of Periyar’s sentences is very close to my heart. It is Brahmanical to omit and to be silent.

Note 3 : Previously

Here is Sinthujan responce
Not planning to read Senan’s response to me re: Parai as I’m too exhausted of dealing with more caste obfuscators and apologists, but saw the following citation reshared by Santhors JP on my feed. Now I’m personally no more interested in prolonging this debate as I’ve said what needed to be said, but this begs for a reply:

“This group (Parai, Voice of Freedom) however did not emerge with any particular identity. It is also informed by the use of ancient instruments by the African population at political meetings in London. The youth saw Parai as a Tamil instrument – and as a symbol of freedom – and wanted to popularise it as a freedom symbol in the west. They were totally aware of the caste connotation; however, for them the Parai is not only an instrument of ‘caste liberation’.

To assume that an individual and groups can exist in a social vacuum is quite wrong to say the least. We don’t need to enunciate particular identites or rally under their banner for these identities to exist, become true and matter. They can very well exist without being brought into the spotlight, without ever being mentioned, without every consciously identifying with them. What the author is basically trying to say is that we can choose to highlight and erase our identities at any given moment, however they suit us.

Now a group like ‘Parai Voice of Freedom’ can bring together people of all walks of life, identifying with a number of things, but let’s be clear: what they share is being part of the 1.5 and second generation of the diaspora who identify with Eelam, thus are already subject of a particular narrative, politicisation and form of identity politics. Of course they didn’t come together to say “hey, we are a Vellalar or Karaiyar or whatever group”. Few groups ever do and yet they silently carry these identities and the politics that come with it. They are informed by it. Similar things can be said about diasporic temple organisations, village organisations, school alumni groups and so on and forth.

“The youth saw Parai as a Tamil instrument – and as a symbol of freedom – and wanted to popularise it as a freedom symbol in the west.”

This again points to how diaspora acts as a space for reimagination where multiple actors reinvent themselves, our past and with it also our future. To say that Parai is a a “Tamil instrument” and a “symbol of freedom” just points to the dangers of revisonism which thrive all over diaspora. The question should be: who do they benefit but those who have, over centuries, exploited the caste status quo?

“They were totally aware of the caste connotation;”

I strongly doubt this. Otherwise I wouldn’t need to argue with you and this entire exercise wouldn’t feel like speaking to a wall if this was ever the case. Additionally, the assumptions of Parai being a “symbol of freedom” or “Tamil instrument” would never stand grounds in your imagination if any of this was ever taken into consideration.

“however, for them the Parai is not only an instrument of ‘caste liberation’.”

Yes, and this is where social location matters as well as the sovereignty of interpretation, which remains to be claimed and monopolized by those in power: the upper castes, classes and men.

This is what i said
Friend of mine pointed out to me- Sinthujan response to my article – he claimed he is not going to read it (no surprised). But he did read it – because he decided to pick and choose to answer /or should i say sneer without substance. If he had any intellectual honesty, he could have admitted to number of mistakes he done. If that is too much – he could have tried to answer number of the political points raised in the reply. That way he could have taken the discussion towards constructive argument.
Instead look what he had done. Despite lengthy text in front of him (which elaborates difference in tactics and absolute need to fight caste system with special emphasis on fighting the core reason that keeps it alive) he dismisses it with the statement – “caste obfuscators and apologists”! Hypocrisy is breath-taking. What an insult from a boy who grown up comfortably and abuse others to protect that comfort. I am not sure he understands the weight of this accusation. Repeating this tantrum is not going make your mistakes goes away.
I don’t think he read what he writes. Did anyone hide their identity or caste? But to Mr “caste detective” they pointed out that he never spoke to them – either about caste or about the group. In fact he has no knowledge about what is going on. He just attacks people for his petit gains.
Eelam struggle don’t have single narrative. It is complex– please read the history. Responding like this to me- you are not just attacking me –instead insulting huge number of Dalit activists (then and now – for this or that reason –they participated/participating in Eelam struggle).
Think for a minute: you say you strongly “doubt” that the people involved are “aware” of caste connotation to parai. Then based on that “doubt” you began to insult others. Why didn’t you just ask them? I wrote the article after I talked to number of youth – it’s not just my opinion. But you still refuse to accept and carry on with your insult. Don’t you have any integrity?
I pointed out in my article that “symbol of freedom” or “Tamil instrument” etc comes from India – from various groups – it’s not just a diaspora phenomenon – Use of parai in nationalist events existed even before 2009 (in Sri Lanka and in India) – did you care to check when and why and by whom? In a hurry to be “clever” you do come out as someone who refuse to understand even the basics