Why the Caste system persists

I received a mail from a Slovakian girl recently. I would like to share the correspondence with all:

i read this highly interesting and probably even provoking article yesterday...so wanted to know your thoughts on it...let me know after u read it :))

hope ur both doing well!! its been ages since we last spoke...but i sense there will be a time for us to meet again :))

ciaoooo from Prague!!

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2012/01/19/011912-opinions-column-caste-dalmia-1-3/

I am going to reproduce the whole piece here; please do read my take at the bottom.

Tragic truth about caste

Why even members of India's lowest classes cling to unfair system

BY SHIKHA DALMIA THURSDAY, JANUARY 19, 2012

I frequently get asked in America why India’s caste system, a pre-feudalistic division of labor that assigns one’s line of work at birth, has persisted into the 21st century. I typically answer: the need of the privileged upper castes for cheap labor. But there is an even more tragic explanation, as I discovered during a recent visit to New Delhi while talking to Maya, the dalit or untouchable — the lowest of the four castes — who has serviced my family for 35 years. Maya herself clings to her caste because it still offers her the best possible life in India.

What’s puzzling about the caste system is that it endures without legal force. Unlike slavery, where whites actively relied on authorities to maintain their slave holdings, the caste system is an informal, self-perpetuating institution.

How? Consider Maya’s story.

Maya assigned herself to our house in 1977. We had no choice. If we wanted our trash picked up, bathrooms scrubbed and yards cleaned, Maya was it. Indians find dealing with other people’s refuse not just unpleasant, but polluting. Hence only dalits are willing to do this work, something that both stigmatizes them and gives them a stranglehold on the market. And they have transformed this stranglehold into an ironclad cartel that closes all other options for their customers.

When Maya got married at 16, her father-in-law paid another dalit $20 for her wedding gift: the “rights” to service 10 houses in our neighborhood, including ours. Maya has no formal deed to these “rights,” yet they are more inviolable than holy writ. Maya’s fellow dalits, who own the “rights” to other houses, can’t work in hers, just as she can’t work in theirs.

Doing so, Maya insists, would be tantamount to theft that would invite a well-deserved beating and ostracism by the dalit community. No one would help a “poacher” or attend her family functions like births, weddings or funerals.

This arrangement has guaranteed Maya a monthly income of $100 that, along with her husband’s job as a “gofer” at a government lab, has helped her raise three children and build a modest house with a bathroom, a prized feature among India’s poor. But Maya’s monopoly doesn’t give her just money. It also hands her clout to resist the upper-caste power structure, not always for noble reasons.

None of Maya’s employers dares challenge her work. Maya takes more days off for funerals every year than there are members in her extended family. Complaining, however, is not only pointless but perilous. It would result in stinking piles of garbage outside the complainer’s home for days. Every time my mother gets into spats with Maya over her sketchy scrubbing, my mother loses. One harsh word, and Maya boycotts our house until my mother cajoles her back. Nor is Maya the only sweeper, or jamadarni, with an attitude. All of New Delhi is carved up among Maya-style sweeper cartels and it is a rare house whose jamadarni is not a “big problem.”

But the price for this clout is the loss of inter-caste acceptability. Segregation has loosened considerably among the first three castes. But dalits are allowed to socialize with other castes only if they abandon trash-related work. Otherwise, every interaction involving them becomes subject to an apartheid-like social code.

Some of Maya’s houses, for example, have separate entrances that allow her to access bathrooms without having to enter the main house. Although the families have formed a genuine bond with her and treat her generously, plying her with lavish gifts during festivals, there are limits. They give her breakfast and lunch, but in separate dishes. Sitting at their table, sharing a meal, is forbidden. Not even my mother’s driver, a higher caste, would visit Maya and accept a glass of water, even though he is poorer than she.

Maya is resigned to such discrimination, but not her oldest son, 36. He holds a government job, works as a sales representative for an Amway-style company and dreams big. He is embarrassed by his mother and lies to his customers about her work. He makes enough money to support Maya and wants her to quit, but she will have none of it. She fears destitution and poverty more, she says, than she craves social respectability.

But the choice may not be hers much longer.

Upon retirement, she had planned to either pass her “business” to her children or sell it to another dalit for about $1,000. But about six months ago, municipal authorities started dispatching vans, Western-style, to collect trash from neighborhoods, the one service that protected Maya from obsolescence in an age of sophisticated home-cleaning gadgetry.

Maya and her fellow dalits held demonstrations outside the municipal commissioner’s office to stop the vans. They finally arrived at a compromise that lets Maya and her pals collect trash from individual homes and hand it to the vans for disposal. But Maya realizes that this arrangement won’t last. “I got branded as polluted and became unfit for other jobs, for what?” she wept. “To build a business that has now turned to dust?”

Her son, however, is pleased. He believes that this will finally force his siblings to develop skills for more respectable work instead of joining their mother. But Maya shakes her head.

And she might be right. Post-liberalization, the most dogged and determined dalits are able to escape their caste-assigned destiny and get rich. But for the vast majority, as Maya says, opportunities are better within the caste system than outside it.

When that changes, the system will die, but not until then.

Dear Marta,

Good to hear from you! It seems you are still attached to India. I remember how you disliked that Indians employ 'servants' to do their work. Now, I too hate if there is someone at call to do my bidding, who subordinates his own wishes and well-being to providing me service. But, that is not the case here. A servant gets paid for his/her labour and the payment is not wages; it's price. And the servant - or the service-provider - may choose not to provide service to an individual. 'Good' families teach their children to respect all work and the children - even after they grow up - address the servants respectfully as "uncle" or "aunty".

She says, Maya has an inviolable right to her household and neither her family nor those from Maya's community have the authority to snatch those rights away from Maya. Don't you see, such an arrangement can exist only if both the communities have been residing in the same place for generations and the customs have become rigid? This is possible only in an age-old village where the roots of tradition are strong. The tradition binds the lower caste people to the despicable work and also binds the high caste to one particular lower caste family. The relationship is not of sale and purchase - a commercial relation; but of lords and surfs, a feudal one.

I have not seen anything like it here in Mumbai. When I was a child, I know a young man used to come to our house on his weekly-offs and help my mother in household chores. He cleaned the house, went to the market, etc. All because my father had helped him (and his brother) get a good, permanent job. We were poor too! But the feudal values prevailed so much that he subordinated himself to serving us. My father did pay him, but that was gratis. The young fellow never expected it as a right. I used to be extremely uncomfortable with this man and I hated his attitude of subservience.

Mumbai is an ever-growing industrial city and frankly, I can't imagine modern Delhi to be otherwise. New suburbs are always coming up in Mumbai where everybody is new and no tradition exists. Moreover, the people living together in a building or a cluster of buildings come from similar economic strata; they belong to the same class (who can afford the amenities the apartments provide), not to the same caste. Nor to a section of castes - upper, middle, lower. A very senior member of our housing society comes from an erstwhile untouchable caste. I have not seen anyone from the society treating him with anything other than respect. Yet it is true that not everybody in the housing society will invite him to participate in some caste-related ritual in their family.

Feudal values do persist in employer-employee relationships. Our maidservant takes pride in the fact that in the twenty-odd years that she has been working, she has been a loyal servant to every family. She left work only when the family moved out of the area. She will not demand more payment for extra work if she finds the household in financial difficulty. There are families which actively support the education of the children of housemaids. My wife and all my relations give one month's extra salary as 'bonus' to the servants on the eve of Diwali. Most of the family servants receive generous help from their employees. But the family definitely is not going to be happy if the housemaid's son turns out to be brighter in his career than one of their own!

And of course there are bad eggs to be found everywhere, but that is not the point. I think, the caste system persists because it gives one identity. People did go on pilgrimages before modern transport was introduced. The poor among them, who could not afford paid lodging and boarding, went to the alley (literally pronounced as aalee with the rounded L if you know what I mean) where people of their caste resided and they were given shelter honourably. Anyone going on a pilgrim was honourable and it was one's duty (and it still is) to treat a guest as respectfully as one can. And a person of your own caste is like your brother!

Imagine, what security the custom provided. The modern society rewards ability irrespective of one's birth standing. So, everyone has the chance to 'make it'. But don't you see that would make one lonely? Modern society is made up of individuals; each a lonely individual. Worse, now they want you to sacrifice all your interests to the company, to the job. So, your best friend is your nearest colleague. And he is also your bitterest enemy because he competes with you. Not everyone is able to withstand this crazy way of existence. And then you meet someone from your caste who will help you even if he is not related to you. Who will share values, dialect, customs with you.

I am not a supporter of the caste system but I don't find it either mysterious or loathsome. The only way to destroy the caste system, is to disregard it in public life. The caste system must be destroyed because it gives rise to discrimination. But again, think, I can afford to disown my caste because I don't need the security the caste provides! I am a high-caste person and I shall automatically have some upper hand in public life because my manner, my dialect, my references, my upbringing, all will loudly proclaim that I command values which are held as 'high' by the entire fibre of the society. However, is it right for me to demand that a new migrant to the city also forego whatever help - both material benefit and emotional support - he may get from his fellow caste members?

You have been to India. It probably is the most diverse society on earth. We do not generally perceive a person with different faith, manner, language, colour or features, as a threat. In Mumbai, it is an everyday experience. In a way, every community in India is a minority community. How do you think do we manage to stay together? Think. Law is so superfluous.

श्रद्धा आणि बुद्धी आणि सहिष्णुता

थोर समाजसुधारक आणि ज्येष्ठ निरुपणकार यांच्या सत्कारप्रसंगी जमलेला दहा लाख अनुयायांचा मेळावा ही तमाम बुद्धिप्रामाण्यवादी नास्तिकांना, अंधश्रद्धाळू, अज्ञानप्रेमी भाविकांनी मारलेली सणसणीत थप्पड आहे.

If I were not an atheist, I would believe in a God, who would choose to save people on the basis of the totality of their lives and not the pattern of their words. I think he would prefer an honest and righteous atheist to a TV preacher whose evry word is God, God, God, and whose evry deed is foul, foul, foul.

Isaac Asimov
The Times of India 19 Nov 2011

Many thanks, Awdhoot. Mi loksatta gheto ani sakali ghait kuthehi jayacha nasalyamule barach vachato. Pan kahi batamya, features apoap filter hotat tasa ha photo jhala.
Tujhya mailmule lavkarat lavkar Loksatta band karayla mokala! Pan paryay kay? To navtarun, navamatth MaTa? Ki marathi bandach karu? HT pure?


Loksattaa band kelyaane Ganeshmurtechaa chhaap asalela paper ghyaavaa laagel.
Girish Kuberchyaa jaagee mee asato tar malaahee hech karaawe laagale asaate.
Tu lokashaahee maanat asasheel tar andhashraddhaa nirmoolan chalavalee visarjeet kelyaa paahijes,
Majority decides what is right and what is wrong.

Lokshahi mhanaje bahumatachi hukumshahi navhe! Itaranna ija n pohochavata majhya tenets pramane jaganyacha hakk mala ahe. Ani to mi bajavanarach. Udya loksatta band kela tar gupchup karanar nahi. Loksattela reetsar patra pathv in ki andhshraddha jopasun tumache daha vachak vadhat asatil tar mi ek kami honar

प्रिय अवधूत,
काल तुझी मेल वाचून माझा असा गैसमज झाला, की 'सणसणीत थप्पड ...' हे लोकसत्तेचं विधान आहे. त्या गैरसमजाला अनुसरून माझी प्रतिक्रिया झाली. ते विधान लोकसत्तेचं नसून तुझं आहे, हे कळल्यावर मला माझे शब्द मागे घ्यायचे आहेत.
श्रद्धा आणि अंधश्रद्धा, यात मला फरक दिसत नाही आणि मी अश्रद्ध, नास्तिक, पाखंडी असलो तरी दुसऱ्या कोणी श्रद्धा बाळगायला माझा अजिबात विरोध नाही. श्रद्धाळू लोकांनी मेळावा भरवला आणि त्यात दहा लाख लोक गोळा झाले आणि माझा विचाराचे दहाच जमणार असतील, तर मला त्यात वैषम्य सुद्धा वाटत नाही. थप्पड वगैरे खाल्यासारखं तर अजिबात नाही. माझं म्हणणं इतकंच आहे की आम्हा दहा लोकांनादेखील सार्वजनिकपणे जमायला आणि विचार मांडायला मुभा असावी.
पुढचं लिहिलं नाही तर मला अप्रामाणिक वाटेल.
माणसाची निर्णयप्रक्रिया गुंतागुंतीची असते. मी माझ्या धारणा बुद्धीमधून ठरवत नाही, असं माझ्या लक्षात आल्यावर मी इतरांचं निरीक्षण केलं आणि मला जाणवलं की जगण्याच्या सर्व व्यवहारांमध्ये मार्गदर्शक ठरणाऱ्या धारणा ठरवताना कोणीच बुद्धी वापरत नाही. 'बुद्धी नाही, तर काय भावना?' हा सवाल उथळ आहे. 'पिंड' नेमका कसा घडतो, त्यात संस्कारांचा, सभोवतालाचा भाग किती आणि व्यक्तीनिष्ठ निवड किती, हे मला माहीत नाही. त्यात आणखीही काही असू शकेल.
आणखी विचार केल्यावर तर मला बुद्धी बेभरवशाची वाटू लागली आहे. बुद्धीला गृहीतं - axioms - लागतात. ते कुठून येतात? शेवटी माझं आकलन असं आहे की, माणूस निर्णय अगोदर घेतो आणि त्या निर्णयाचा समर्थन करण्यासाठी तर्क बुद्धीतून घडवण्याची प्रक्रिया नंतर करतो. म्हणून, माझी बुद्धी जेव्हा काही सांगू लागते, तेव्हा मी सावध होऊन त्याचा उगम शोधतो. तो बहुधा 'वाकड्यात' लपलेला असतो. विशुद्ध बुद्धी हे कृतीविषयक निर्णय घेण्याच्या संदर्भात थोतांड आहे. विशुद्ध बुद्धी केवळ तत्त्वज्ञानाच्या कामाची आहे.
असो. I think, I have exposed myself to serious and strong criticism. So be it. As I said, it would have been dishonest to stick to the point and not express the more serious disagreement.

Call them "Vishvahindu"

It is common knowledge that the RSS camp always bandies about untruths all the time and then treats them as facts. It is also common knowledge that many of them stoop to using filthy language to malign people they don’t like. SO, let us thank Shri Prabhu that he purports to use logic. (I am referring to the longish article titled "Ishrat Jahan case turn around : What Ishara to whom ? Author: Rajesh Prabhu" in 'Global Marathi Newsletter.)
But what form of logic! ‘.Has it been proved that Ishrat was not a terrorist / LeT operative?’ he asks. ‘Guilty till proved innocent’ is the new maxim of justice, it seems. I wonder if Shri Prabhu carries a certificate issued by the judiciary that it is proved that he is NOT a terrorist.
Then the ‘pseudo’ in bracket. Just as you cannot have a plain mujara; it must either be त्रिवार or मानाचा: ‘Secular’ does not exist; it is ‘pseudo secular’ by default.
There is an important point I wish to make. I am a Hindu and am proud of the fact. I also do NOT believe in god. And I don’t mind if beef is served to me. My religion is not dogmatic, does not have a holy book like the bible or the quoran. My religion permits me to have my own beliefs and canons. ‘Hindu’ is a way of life, they say. I totally agree. India would not survive if a rigid set of religious practices is imposed. So, I have to make a suggestion. Shri Prabhu and his clan is free to follow their own path; but I would rather they do not sully my religion by calling themselves simply as ‘Hindu’. I suggest that this tribe be described as ‘Vishvahindu’. I do not want anyone to confuse that they and I share religious tenets, though both are ‘Hindu’.
I agree in spirit with points made in para nos 8 and 9. The encounter specialist police officers and the killers of Ishrat are all murderers, as suggested by Shri Prabhu. Both must be condemned and I am sure Shri Prabhu will wholeheartedly support prosecution of all such police people, from Maharashtra and from Gujrat.
I have no wish to counter his fervent mudslinging and would like to make one last point. There was no post-Godhra riot in Gujrat; it was plain genocide. And it was state-sponsored. If Mr Modi is such an efficient administrator and has his finger on the pulse of his State; then he knew of the state-sponsored, police-supported genocide. That makes him a murderer. The mass killing of Muslims in Gujrat is as despicable as the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi and other places. Mr Modi is no better than the architects of the Sikh murders. All are worthy of condemnation; Mr Modi more so, because he was at the helm of affairs then. He could have averted the heinous crime but he chose to abet it.

अमेरिकन लोकांना जशी कलेचं विज्ञान करून टाकण्याची जबर हौस, तसं भारतीयांचंसुद्धा आहे; पण वेगळ्या संदर्भात.

कलेचं विज्ञान करणे म्हणजे काय? म्हणजे कला कलावंताची असते, विज्ञान अभ्यासाने कोणालाही साध्य असतं. उदाहरणार्थ, हौ टू विन फ़्रेंड्स अँड इन्फ्लुअन्स पीपल. पुस्तक वाचून जगमित्र व्हा. समाजात बदल घडवून आणायचाय? त्यासाठी कळकळ, बांधिलकी, अशा व्यक्‍तिनिष्ठ गुणांची आवश्यकता नाही; MSW कोर्समध्ये BCC शिकून घ्या. MSW म्हणजे मास्टर ऑफ सोशल वर्क (पेशा, व्यवसाय म्हणून समाजकार्य करा). आणि BCC म्हणजे बिहेविअयरल चेंज कॉम्युनिकेशन (विशिष्ट तंत्रं वापरून संदेश प्रक्षेपित केला, की संदेशग्रहण करणार्‍याचं - करणारीचं - वर्तन अपेक्षित बदलासाठी अनुकूल बनतं). थोडक्यात, आत काही नसलं तरी बाहेरून सगळं परिधान करता येतं. आणि ते खर्‍याइतकंच प्रत्ययकारी ठरतं.

अशापैकी भारतात आहे ते काय? तर आपली कर्मकांडं. ती एकेका व्यक्‍तिगत अनुभवाला सामाजिक, सार्वजनिक करून टाकतात. मग माणसाची आत्मनिष्ठा पातळ होऊन तो समाजघटक बनतो. "आम्ही यापुढे एकत्र राहून सर्व काही शेअर करायचं ठरवलं आहे," अशी घोषणा करावीशी पशुपक्ष्यांना वाटत नाही; मनुष्यसमूहातल्या सदस्याला वाटते. तेव्हा लग्न हा विधी सामाजिकच. पण कोणा निकटच्या व्यक्‍तीचा मृत्यू? एरवी पाळली नाहीत, दिसली नाहीत; तरी रक्‍ताची नाती मृत्यूच्या वेळी ऑपरेशनल होतात. आणि आपल्याकडे नाती तरी किती. सगळे आप्‍तस्वकीय सांत्वनाला येतात. जावंच लागतं. ते येणार म्हणून मरणार्‍याच्या कुटुंबियांना तयार रहावं लागतं. कामासाठी, कशाहीसाठी बाहेर न जाता घरी थांबावं लागतं. सांत्वन करून घ्यावं लागतं. एक नाही, दोन नाही; म्हणे बारा दिवस. यात अंतर्मुख होण्याची संधी नाकारली जाते. जाणारी व्यक्‍ति नसण्याने आपल्या अस्तित्वात होणार्‍या पोकळीच्या परिमितीकडे न्याहाळायला मिळत नाही. आत खळबळ न होताच बाहेरच्या कर्मकांडांनी पोकळी भरली जाते.

कर्मकांडं लगेच ताबा घेतात. ती ताटी, तोंड या दिशेला की पाय? मडकं, त्याला दगडाने भोक पाडणे, ओठांवर पालथी मूठ आपटत बोंब मारणे. मंत्रपठण. काही लोकांच्यात मयताला आंघोळ घालतात. तो विवाहित पुरुष असेल, तर त्याच्या बायकोच्या हातातल्या बांगड्या विशिष्ट पद्धतीने फोडतात. या जात/जमातविशिष्ट रीतीभाती माहीत असलेले लोक भराभरा प्रॉम्टिंग करतात आणि गोष्टी घडत जातात. आतल्या पोकळीतली खळबळ गुदमरवून नष्ट केली जाते.

समाजस्वास्थ्याच्या दृष्टीने हे अर्थातच आवश्यक आहे. मृत्यूचं दर्शन माणसाला ठार एकटं करू शकतं. सगळे बुद्ध होत नाहीत; पण प्रोसेस तीच असते, ज्याच्या त्याच्या संवेदनशीलतेच्या मर्यादेतल्या ज्ञानप्राप्‍तीची. असा एकटा होणारा माणूस समाजासाठी, समाजस्वास्थ्यासाठी अधिकाधिक कुचकामी होत जातो. कर्मकांडं या प्रोसेसला बांध घालतात.

असो.

अक्षर दिवाळी अंकातल्या माझ्या शम्मी कपूरवरच्या लेखातून:
राज कपूर हे एक ’स्कूल’, एक ’घराणं’ होतं. सगळ्याच सिनेमांमध्ये तो आवाराप्रमाणे आईला द्यायला रोटी मिळाली नाही, म्हणून चोरीच्या रस्त्याला लागलेला गुंड, किंवा नशीब कमवायला शहरात येऊन शहरातल्या मोहमयी दुनियेत फसलेला श्री चारसोबीस नव्हता. अंदाजमध्ये तर तो जवळपास व्हिलनच होता. पण कोणीही असला, तरी तो दुबळा, व्हल्नरेबल दिसायचा. नर्गिसचं उलट होतं. (ती तर अदालत किंवा मदर इंडियामध्ये हताश, खचलेली असते; तेव्हासुद्धा दुबळी दिसत नाही.) त्याचं आणि नर्गिसचं प्रेमप्रकरण थट्टेवारी नेण्यासारखं मुळीच नव्हतं. मुळात, बहुतेक सिनेमांमध्ये तीच ती नायिका असूनही त्यांचा प्रणय जराही शिळा न वाटणे, हेच थोर होतं. त्या निष्ठावानपणाला सिनेमाबाहेर, जगण्यातलं मूल्य प्राप्त होत होतं. आणि कॉलेजचे दिवस मूल्यांचा शोध घेण्याचेच तर असतात!
देवचा नायक नायिकेशी खेळायचा; पण त्याच्या मवालीपणात एक रुबाब होता. आत्मप्रतिष्ठा होती. देव गरीब असो की श्रीमंत; त्याच्या व्यक्तिमत्त्वाचा रुबाब तोच होता. पेइंग गेस्ट, तेरे घरके सामनेमध्ये नूतन; काला बाजार, गाइडमध्ये वहिदा; काला पानी, जाली नोटमध्ये मधुबाला; टॅक्सी ड्रायव्हर, नौ दो ग्यारहमध्ये कल्पना कार्तिक; हम दोनो, असली नकलीमध्ये साधना; कोणाशीही त्याची जोडी मस्त जुळायची. त्याच्या एका चाहत्याने त्याच्या मते निरुत्तर करणारा मुद्दा मांडताना म्हटलं होतं, "टॅक्सी ड्रायव्हर, जुगारी, गाईड, सैनिक, शराबी, काळा बाजार करणारा, ... सगळं करून दाखवलंय देव आनंदने!"
दिलीपची तर गोष्टच वेगळी. ’मला गंभीरपणेच बघा; माझा सिनेमा म्हणजे गंमत जंमत नव्हे!’ अशी त्याची दरडावणीच होती. दागमधला दारुडा असो, की आझादमधला रॉबिनहुड; दिलीपचा नायक सगळा स्क्रीन भरून टाकायचा. देवदास आणि गंगा जमना यांसारख्या दमदार रेखाटनांची गोष्टच सोडा. ट्रॅजेडी रोल करून निम्मीने दिलीपबरोबर जोडी जमवायचा प्रयत्न केला; पण जमलं नाही. नायक-नायिकेच्या प्रेमाविना चित्रपटच न बनण्याच्या त्या काळात दिलीपला स्ट्राँग जोडीदारीण असायचीच. मग तराना, मुगले आझममध्ये मधुबाला असेल; मधुमती, गंगा जमनामध्ये वैजयंतीमाला असेल; नाही तर दर रोज गर्वरूपी साबणाने नहात असल्यासारखी दिसणारी देवदासमधली सुचित्रा सेन असेल.

आणि आजच्या ’लोकमत’मधली ही देव आनंदला वाहिलेली श्रद्धांजली (मुळात मी लिहिलेली):
अमर प्रेम पुजारी
देव आनंदचा मृत्यू अकाली झाला, यात शंका नाही; काही माणसं तरुणपणातच हरपतात. त्यातलाच एक देव आनंद. त्याला भेटलेल्या प्रत्येकाला त्याच्या सळसळत्या उत्साहाचा संसर्ग व्हायचा; तरुण झाल्यासारखं वाटायचं. तरुण आणि उत्साही दिसणे, ही देव आनंदला ओळखण्याची सर्वात मोठी खूण होती. गंमत अशी की दिलीप, राज, देव या त्रिमूर्तीने सिनेमात कामं करायला सुरुवात केली, तेव्हा माझा जन्मही झाला नव्हता. पण आमच्या पिढीचं ’सांस्कृतिक पोषण’ मॅटिनी शोवर झालं. म्हणजे, देव आनंद आमच्या मागच्या पिढीपासून तारुण्याचा आयकॉन होता. दिलीप हा परिपूर्ण नट; राज म्हणजे गरिबांचा, ’बिचार्‍यांचा’ प्रतिनिधी. पण अभिनयात कच्चाच असणार्‍या आणि गांवढळ, गरीब बिचारा न दिसणार्‍या देव आनंदच्या अचाट लोकप्रियतेचं रहस्य काय?
देव आनंद म्हण्जे काय? ’बाजी’तला जुगारी, ’जाल’मधला स्मगलर, ’टॅक्सी ड्रायव्हर’मध्ये टॅक्सी ड्रायव्हर, ’काला बाजार’मध्ये सिनेमाची तिकिटं ब्लॅकमध्ये विकायला सुरुवात करून तो वहिदा भेटल्यावर सुधारतो आणि ’सफेद बाजार’ काढतो. ’मुनिमजी’मध्ये दोन रूपांत वावरतो. बहुतेक चित्रपटांमध्ये त्याला एक तरी ज्यादा नायिका लागते; जी एकदा तरी त्याच्या रूपाची स्तुती करते. ’काला पानी’ मध्ये मधुबाला पहिल्यांदा दिसते, तो सीन आठवतो? देव आनंद एका पेपरच्या ऑफिसमध्ये आलेला असतो आणि समोरच्या टेबलवरची बाई प्रचंड कामात असते. शेवटी ती वळते आणि -- जग थांबतं. तो तिला आणि ती त्याला बघून अवाक् होतात. ’ज्वेल थीफ’, ’जॉनी मेरा नाम’, ’तेरे घरके सामने’, अगदी ’तेरे मेरे सपने’ सुद्धा; सर्व ठिकाणी देव आनंद साहेब स्वतःच्या विलक्षण प्रेमात असल्याचं जाणवत रहातं. इतरांनी आपल्या प्रेमात पडावं, ही त्याची अपेक्षा लक्षात येते.
ही देव आनंदची, देव आनंद या प्रतिमेची खरी ओळख.
आदर्शवादाने आणि डाव्या विचारसरणीने भारलेल्या स्वातंत्र्यानंतरच्या त्या काळात स्वतःवरच्या प्रेमाचं असं प्रदर्शन, असं कौतुक वेगळं होतं. ते खटकायला हवं होतं. पण देव आनंदच्या व्यक्तिमत्त्वात आणखी काही होतं. त्याचं स्वतःवरचं प्रेम त्याला इतरांना तुच्छ मानायला लावत नव्हतं. तो पडद्यावर आत्मकेंद्रित, आत्ममश्गुल वाटला नाही. लव्हेबल वाटला. इतका लव्हेबल, की एक मुलगी मला म्हणाली, याला पाळावासा वाटतो. घरी ठेवावा आणि याच्याकडून प्रेम करून घ्यावं!
तेव्हाची मूल्यं खरी होती. त्या मूल्यांनुसार स्वतःवर प्रेम करणं उल्लूपणाचं लक्षण होतं. पण देव आनंद मुळीच उल्लू ठरला नाही. ’इतरांवर प्रेम करायचं, तर अगोदर स्वतःवर प्रेम करायला शिका!’ असा महान संदेश तो देत राहिला.
स्वतःवर इतका खूष असलेल्या, इतरांकडून प्रेमाची अपेक्षा असणार्‍या या देखणेपणामुळेच ’बम्बईका बाबू’ मधली शोकांतिका जिवंत होते. इस्टेट लाटायला खोटा वारस म्हणून जातो आणि ’बहिणी’च्या प्रेमात पडतो! त्याला खरंच भाऊ मानणार्‍या तिच्या मनात कसं काही येणार?
पण ’बम्बईका बाबू’ हा अपवाद. स्वतःवरच्या प्रेमातून त्याच्या एकूणच वागण्यात जो लडिवाळपणा आला, त्याचा सुंदर परिणाम असा झाला, की नायिका कोणीही असो, देवशी तिची जोडी अनुरूपच वाटली. ’पेइंग गेस्ट’ आणि त्याच्यापेक्षा जास्त ’तेरे घरके सामने’ मध्ये नूतन आणि तो, काय शोभतात, एकमेकांना! ’काला बाजार’ मध्ये ’रिमझिमके तराने लेके आयी बरसात’ गाताना कशी मस्त वाटते देव-वहिदाची जोडी! ’नौ दो ग्यारह’ मध्ये त्या मवाली कल्पना कार्तिकला बघताना वाटतं, हीच खरी याची जोडीदारीण! ’हम दोनो’ आणि ’असली नकली’. सांगा पाहू साधनाच्या जवळ दुसर्‍या कोणी जावंसं वाटतं तरी का? ’ओ मेरे राजा’ हे तर नाटकी ड्युएट; पण ते नाटक करायला हेमा मालिनीबरोबर देवच हवा ना? ’पलभरके लिये कोई हमें प्यार कर ले’ मध्ये तर अंगाला हात न लावता तिची इतकी चावट मस्करी आणखी कोण करणार? ’जीवनकी बगिया मेहेकेगी’ गाताना देव आणि मुमताज किती प्रेमात दिसतात एकमेकांच्या. हिरो-हिरॉइनच्या ’केमिस्ट्री’ला फार किंमत असते. देव आनंद म्हणजे युनिव्हर्सल सॉल्व्हंट! कोणालाही विरघळवतो!
देव आनंदला कोण उल्लू म्हणेल? एक गोरा, एक काळा; एक शूर, एक भित्रा; एक सच्चा, एक झूटा; असे खूप डबल रोल झाले हिंदी सिनेमात. पण दोन्ही चिकणे, दोन्ही चांगले, दोन्ही सैन्यात; असे ’हम दोनो’ किती सापडतात? देव आनंदच्या नवकेतनने गुरु दत्तला, राज खोसलाला ब्रेक दिला. सचिन देव बर्मनला धरून ठेवला. गाइडसारखा अवघड विषयावरचा सिनेमा काढला. आणि हिंदी सिनेमाच्या इतिहासातला एक थोर दिग्दर्शक विजय आनंद नवकेतनचाच की.
’प्रेम पुजारी’ नंतर देव आनंदला दिग्दर्शक होण्याची इच्छा झाली आणि स्वतःच्या बॅनरखाली तो त्यानंतर आजतागायत सिनेमे दिग्दर्शित करत राहिला. पस्तीस वर्षं! स्वतःवरचं प्रेम विसरा; किती बांधिलकी या माध्यमाशी! देव आनंदने सिनेमातून पैसे मिळवून सिनेमेच काढले. आणि सार्‍या जगाला उत्साहाचे, तरुण वृत्तीचे धडे दिले. एका देखण्या, उमद्या, कामावर आणि काम करत रहाण्यावर प्रेम करणार्‍या अस्सल हिरोला प्रणाम!

चला पुरावे नष्ट करूया!

महाभारत युद्धात सरतेशेवटी भीमाने दु:शासनाला ठार केलं. मग भीमपुढे झाला. मेलेल्या दु:शासनाच्या छाताडावर बसला आणि त्याने दु:शासनाची छाती फाडली. भीमच तो, त्याला माणसाची छाती फाडायला हत्यारांची गरज नव्हती. काही क्षणांपूर्वी मृत पावलेल्या दु:शासनाचं रक्त थंड तर झालं नव्हतंच; वहायचंही थांबलं नव्हतं. छाती फोडली जाताच त्या गरमरक्ताची चिळकांडी उसळली. रोमारोमात खून चढलेला भीमते रक्त गटागटा प्यायला. खदखदा हसला. दु:शासनाच्या रक्ताने बरबटलेले हात वर धरून तो युद्धभूमीवरून धावत सुटला. थेट द्रौपदीच्या छावणीत गेला. म्हणाला, 'ये, द्रौपदी, तुझी वेणी घालतो.' तब्बल तेरा वर्षं वेणी न घालता केस मोकळे ठेवलेली द्रौपदी पुढे झाली आणि तिने तेरा वर्षांनंतर प्रथमच स्वत:ची वेणी घालून घेतली. रक्ताने बरबटलेल्या हातांनी.
कसं वाटतं? महाभारतकाराला बरं नाही वाटलं. असलं अघोरी, अमानुष कृत्य भीमाच्या हातून घडलं, याला महाभारतकाराने - असं तरी कशाला, आपल्या पौराणिक परंपरेने - दोन एकात एक गुंतलेली कारणं दिली आहेत. एक म्हणजे दु:शासनाने मुळात जेव्हा द्रौपदीला भर दरबारात विवस्त्र करण्याचा प्रयत्न केला, तेव्हा त्या घोर कृत्याला तिथल्या तिथे अटकाव करू न शकणार्‍या भीमाने तिथल्या तिथेच दरबारातील सर्वांच्या साक्षीने गर्जना केली, 'या दु:शासनाची मी छाती फोडून त्याचं रक्त प्राशन करीन!'
आणि द्रौपदीनेही नंतर बजावलं, 'जोपर्यंत दु:शासनाच्या रक्ताने भिजलेल्या हातांनी माझी वेणी घातली जाणार नाही, तोपर्यंत मी वेणीच घालणार नाही.' आणि वनवासाचा संपूर्ण काळ, त्यानंतर युद्ध सुरू होण्यापर्यंतचा काळ ती पांडवांना सतत डिवचत राहिली, की 'बघा, हे माझे मोकळे केस बघा. ते कोणी, कसे मोकळे केले, या आठवणीने तरी तुमचं पौरुष जागं होऊ द्या!'
तेव्हा मेलेल्याच्या शरिराची विटंबना करणे याला आपल्या परंपरेत आधार आहे. वर्तमानातही गुंड टोळ्या प्रतिस्पर्धी टोळीतल्या कुणाचा मर्डर केल्यावर त्याचं प्रेत लाथाडताना आपण सिनेमात पाहिलेलं आहे. त्यातही वस्तुस्थिती आहेच.
पण भीमाला खून चढला होता आणि द्रौपदीची वेणी घालून झाल्यावर तो थरथरत होता आणि त्याला पुन्हा शांत करण्यासाठी युधिष्ठिराला विशेष प्रयत्न करावे लागले होते, असंही महाभारत म्हणतंच. भीमाच्या करणीतल्या किळसवाण्या, क्रूर भागावर 'प्रतिशोधाचं' किंवा 'अपरिहार्य प्रतिज्ञापूर्तीचं' पांघरूण घालत नाही. आणि गुंड टोळ्यांचं वर्तन म्हणजे आदर्श वर्तणुकीचे धडे होत, असं हिंसक जमावबाजीचं माथेफिरू राजकारण करणारे सोडून कुणी म्हणणार नाही.
आता सांगा, हे पुरावा नष्ट करणं काय भानगड आहे? आपल्या बाईशी दुसरा संबंध ठेवतो, हे पाहून एखाद्याचं टाळकं फिरतं आणि भावनेच्या भरात तो त्याचा खून करतो, समझे. बरोबर नसलं, तरी समझे. त्या मुडद्यावर तो 'क्रीगा! टारझन बुंडेलो!' म्हणत टारझन स्वत: मारलेल्या सिंहाच्या किंवा वाघाच्या प्रेतावर जसा नाचत असे, तसा नाचला, तरी एक वेळ समझे. पण बाजारातून बॅगा आणणं, प्रेताचे तीनशे की तीस तुकडे करणं, एका बॅगेत ते तुकडे आणि दुसरीत कपडे भरून दोन्ही बॅगा जंगलात टाकून देणं, म्हणजे काय पुरावा नष्ट करणं? बास?
मुद्दा केवळ मृत मानवी शरिराच्या विटंबनेचा नाही. तसं म्हटलं, तर देहदान केलेल्याच्या कलेवराचं डिसेक्शन टेबलवर जे होतं, त्याला कुणी धार्मिक मनुष्य विटंबनाच म्हणेल. मुख्य मुद्दा भावनिक नाहीच. मुद्दा सामाजिक नीतीचा आहे. नीती ही अशी गोष्ट आहे, जी लॉजिकमध्ये नीटशी बसत नाही. तरी तिचा संबंध मानवी समाजाच्या स्थैर्याशी लावता येतो. पूर्ण तिर्‍हाइत माणसाची प्रेतयात्रा जात असताना नमस्कार केला जाणे, त्या प्रेतयात्रेपुढे आपलं वाहन दामटण्याचा प्रयत्न न करणे, या सुसंस्कृततेच्या पातळीत मानवी जिवाबद्दल आदर व्यक्त होतो. ज्या अर्थी आपण माणूस आहोत, त्या अर्थी या समाजात आपल्या जिवाला विनाकारण धोका नाही, असा विश्र्वास तयार होतो. ज्यामुळे माणसं स्वत:चा जीव बचावण्याच्या आयडिया काढत न बसता स्वत:ला आणि समाजाला जास्त उपयोगी ठरतील, अशा कामात मग्न होतात. अर्थात, सर्वसाधारण माणसं. उगीच या आणि त्या नराधमाची अपवादात्मक उदाहरणं देण्यात अर्थ नाही.
की हा सगळा भ्रमच? परिक्षेत कॉपी करून कॉपीचा कागद फाडून टाकणे, 'आदर्श'संबंधित फायली बेपत्ता करणे आणि खून करून प्रेताचे तुकडे पिशवीत भरून टाकून देणे, हे सगळे एकाच पातळीवरचे गुन्हे? पुरावा नष्ट करणे? माझा जीव, माझी प्रतिष्ठा, माझं यश सहीसलामत सुटलं की पुरे. ह्यूमन डिग्निटी गेली चुलीत! त्या तंदूरमध्ये जळलेल्या दिल्लीतल्या बाईसारखी!
इथे आरती प्रभूंची एक कविता द्यायची आहे; पण अजून ती मिळाली नाही.

Aruna: Whose story is it?

Supreme Court has given its verdict: Aruna Shanbag lives. The wise judges have however made a distinction between active and passive forms of euthanasia and have suggested that the parliament make a law in this regard. Aruna's story, the court case as also the verdict are bound to generate a vigorous debate about related issues like euthanasia, right to life - and to end own life, what is life and so on. The debate may even sway towards the necessity to conserve scarce resources like medical healthcare for the sake of the needy and the productive among our citizens.
All such debates are welcome since such brainstorming is indeed necessary for updating our understanding of the changing context, and therefore of the changing perception of the human condition. I am going to do my bit to add to the babel. I want to introduce an aspect or two which I find missing in all the arguments and counter arguments being made all around.
It was Pinky Virani who approached the court. Ms Virani has written a book named Aruna's Story where she has traced Aruna's life as a nurse in KEM Hospital to the rape that destroyed her future to the vegetative state she has been surviving as, for the past 38 long years. There is no reason to doubt Ms Virani's professed empathy nor her purpose in applying for putting an end to Aruna's life. Ms Virani honestly feels that Aruna suffers and has had enough of suffering till now and that death will release her from the constant suffering. Let us also agree that the chances of Aruna regaining a normal life as person responsible for and taking care of her own physical existence, are remote, almost non-existent: a part of her brain has been damaged irreparably and she has shown no recovery during the past 38 years she has been bed-ridden.
But as the enquiry committee observed, Aruna is not all vegetable. She responds to music, to dishes she likes. She also perks up on being greeted by her caretakers. She opens her mouth, she chews, she approves when she is cleaned and freshened up. It may safely be inferred that Aruna's sensory perception is not completely disabled, she perceives though she cannot react more vigorously. Her motor nerves cannot command her muscles to act in more than a rudimentary fashion.
We withdraw our hand reflexively upon touching a hot object; the command to move the hand is short-circuited from the spinal cord and there is no conscious decision making involved. It is claimed that Aruna's responses constitute something akin to the reflex action and do not involve any brain activity. Is it true? Is there a way to ascertain the claim? Have there been attempts to elicit more involved responses from Aruna? If there have been such attempts, what were their outcomes? Have the outcomes been analysed by experts? Have the experts agreed unanimously? Medical science is far from an exact science and we know precious little about the brain functioning. But, the point is, have we tried to learn more about the functioning of the human brain through Aruna? It is possible that no conclusive inferences are possible; but are there any tentative leads? Any new lead could be the road to a deeper understanding or to a more reliable hypothesis.
The world knows of another individual who cannot control his own movements and is confined to a wheelchair for the past many years: Dr Stephen Hawking. But Dr Hawking is so active intellectually that it would be preposterous to suggest that there is something common between him and Aruna, except for the fact of their confinement. However, imagine! If Dr hawking were to be diagnosed as an invalid incapable of any motor activity and were to be abandoned to the care of a charitable home; what colossal loss it would have been for the mankind. Again, I do not intend to suggest that there lurks an intellectual giant in Aruna's mind. Again the point is, have we tried to assess the extent of intellectual activity Aruna is capable of? Where exactly do we draw the line to decide what is intellectually active and what is not? Can Aruna add to our understanding of the subject? Can she help to make the line a little sharper? If the answer is NO, let it be an unequivocal "no" pronounced authentically and publicly.
Aruna Shanbag is the rarest of rare cases where an individual is lying in bed for 38 years. What has happened to her memory? Does she think? A sailor living all the time on a ship becomes bow-legged, a man spending a long time in total darkness cannot open his eyes to sunlight for quite some time. A prisoner in solitary confinement has hallucinations; here is a woman who has shut herself off from the world for so many years, what has happened to her?
May be my queries are naive. I shall be happy to be proved utterly naive. I shall welcome a solid, evidence-based proof of my naïveté.
Now to another aspect that plagues me.
Who is the next longest surviving patient who is totally bedridden like Aruna? And how long has he / she been surviving?
I think, the achievement of the nurses and other concerned staff of KEM Hospital is exceptional. The Supreme Court lauded them for the fact that Aruna has no bedsores, that the bed is spotlessly clean even though she is totally bedridden for as long as 38 years. And they are doing it entirely of their own volition. They are so fiercely protective of her that they abuse Ms Virani for the euthanasia plea. "How many days has Pinky Virani spent in care of Aruna?" they say. One must not forget that hardly any of Aruna's colleagues are there at the hospital now. Yet the spirit of selfless commitment survives. And they are so calm about it. I have visited the hospital a number of times but not once has anybody cited Aruna's case in support of their sense of duty. No nurse there ever refers to Aruna: they do not want to parade her before the public, they are too civilised for that.
What is their motive? Does it come from the training they receive? From their 'culture' (Indian / Maharashtrian / KEM)? Who spends for Aruna's upkeep? Is it the hospital? It is a Municipal hospital; so how does Mumbai Municipal Corporation account for the expenditure? Or does it come from the nurses themselves? Again, what drives them? What a contrast does the strong sense of duty towards a life offer to the euthanasia debate!
Consider the possibilities here. The quality of service Aruna receives is exemplary. And it is reasonable to trust that the other patients at the hospital also benefit from the same quality of service. So, what difference does it make to the overall standing of the hospital? Or of the particular department? Has there been a study to compare the effect of this kind of service on the well being of in-patients? On their recovery? I know it is difficult to make such comparisons, especially since humans are involved. But I also know that there are techniques which can help. What I do feel is an embarrassment that we are not giving the KEM nurses their due. We are completely deceived by their attitude into belittling their feat. It is their modesty that they do not demand gratitude or recognition. But it is our callousness that we do not give it to them.
One last observation: is it easy to keep a comatose / bedridden patient alive and well for so long? Without any bedsores? What diet does Aruna have? Is it a standard diet or is it something that is a result of experiments? Has she not picked up any infection like common cold? Then what does the staff do? I think, 'the experience of treating Aruna' is a book on good diet and good healthcare!
I salute the KEM nurses. They make me proud. Theirs is a story of human good nature and it must be highlighted in all its glory in the current gloom of scams and frauds in high places.