While I completely understand the outrage that the Jindal professor's statement has caused, I was trying to understand what she meant. Perhaps she was indicative of these incidents when she said we all practice untouchability:

1. The maid does not sit at the dining table while eating.

2. Many households have separate utensils for maids.

3. Nannies and drivers when joining the family for eating out, eat at a separate table.

4. Manual scavenging which we approve with our silence every single day, even though we know that our septic tanks are cleaned by people going into those manholes and tanks naked.

5. A contractor who's more experienced and earns in lakhs is considered less respectable than a software engineer who earns 30k per annum at TCS. This is primarily because 'construction' as a profession has been associated with lower castes/classes while intellectual work like math/computing has been associated with upper castes/brahmins.

6. Many temples still do not allow people from lower castes. Even the President of India was humiliated by the priests at the Puri temple.

7. In many cultures, rituals - a non-vegetarian touching a vegetarian plate 'impurifies' it. This is primarily a brahmanical practice, where brahmins were traditionally vegetarians and considered all other varnas who ate non-veg as impure and inferior.

8. Exclusivity of Sanskrit. For thousands of years, brahmins kept Sanskrit language and literacy out of the reach of the common masses. Now we complain why no one speaks Sanskrit. The exclusivity was also based on caste prejudices where knowledge was reserved only for the upper castes.

9. The whole idea of impurity of a 'women' on periods.

10. Women who are sexually active are considered 'impure' - 'satitwa' being an essential requirement of honor for a woman where she must remain committed and wedded to her man. The rules for multiple marriages for men, on the other hand, have always been more relaxed.

I think we should at least discuss these things, shouldn't we?

While I fully appreciate the anger generated by Veer Savarkar's remark, I was attempting to comprehend what he meant. Perhaps he was referring to these events when he said that we all engage in acts of terrorism and misogyny:

1) Continues with an explanation....

Why are you required to pretend you are not prejudiced when you obviously are? I apologise; I did not want to attack the Muslim community; rather, I intended to explain the left in their own language. I was going to make ten points when I said, screw it, I can't descend to your level, so I'll simply point out the logical flaws in what you've stated.

.
.
.

Quote:

1. The maid does not sit at the dining table while eating. 2. Many households have separate utensils for maids. 3. Nannies and drivers when joining the family for eating out, eat at a separate table.

Are you certain this is in reference to the Hindu caste system? Does this not happen in Muslim/Christian/Jain/Sikh families? This is not a case of caste discrimination; this is a case of social discrimination, which encompasses a broader range of issues. This is a discussion about capitalism's contempt towards proletariats. African Americans were likewise treated similarly, if not worse, until the advent of socialism in Europe. This is how the wealthy treat the poor, and by explicitly using the term "Hindu," you absolve everyone else of the wrongs they do against the poor.

Quote:

Manual scavenging which we approve with our silence every single day, even though we know that our septic tanks are cleaned by people going into those manholes and tanks naked.

Nobody condones manual scavenging; the issue is that this social evil has always been carried out by a certain group; technology has not yet entered this area, and even in affluent nations, people are still required to carry it out. The government has given many incentives for manual scavengers to quit their occupations and pursue better opportunities. However, the reality is that when they really did so, the whole Mumbai became gridlocked. Manual scavenging is carried out by a particular group because they are used to it and there are few options in other communities willing to take on such a task; this is not about imposing untouchability. Not only did the Dalit group engage in manual scavenging, but also sweeping and sanitation-related labour was limited to them owing to the caste system. However, Savarna groups have stepped forward to fill these tasks in droves (https://www.hindustantimes.com/india/upper-castes-pick-up-brooms-to-bloom-in-up/story-kdtjqvmca83UJRapfKyAxM.html). They would not have accepted these positions either if it were about prejudice. The majority of Hindus do not return home and beg to their gods, "o god, please keep the manual scavengers employed." In fact, the majority of us want it would stop, but there are no alternatives. Manual scavenging has resulted in the death of individuals. Numerous them. And it is really unhealthy and a safety danger on the job, which is why no one applies. If there is an alternative to manual scavenging, such as AI or robotic machinery, I am confident that the first thing we will do is ensure that no one from the dalit community is involved, which we have already begun doing (https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/robot-that-can-end-indias-manual-scavenging/bandicoot-robot-replacing-manual-sca All I see are attempts to ensure that no one, let alone someone from a certain caste, needs to engage in manual scavenging, but all you see are individuals attempting to impose untouchability.

Quote:

A contractor who's more experienced and earns in lakhs is considered less respectable than a software engineer who earns 30k per annum at TCS. This is primarily because 'construction' as a profession has been associated with lower castes/classes while intellectual work like math/computing has been associated with upper castes/brahmins.

I believe this does not occur anyplace, and you are just exaggerating at the time. The unemployment and poverty statistics in this nation are so high that hardly one is concerned. Seriously, guy, 15 years ago, the first thing individuals who approached you with marriage proposals would inquire about was caste; today, package has supplanted caste. Not to suggest that caste does not play a role in Indian weddings, but not everyone does. For the majority of us, it's all about the money, and whether you go out and get butt-slapped in public for money is irrelevant.

Quote:

9. The whole idea of impurity of a 'women' on periods.

Women on their periods are not permitted to pray in Islam (globally), and they must undergo a full ritual to cleanse themselves afterwards. Indeed, there is a whole book titled Kitab Al-Haid that contains advice for menstruating ladies. At this point, you're just blaming global problems such as misogyny on the caste system and Hinduism, which I'm not sure how to accomplish.

Quote:

Exclusivity of Sanskrit. For thousands of years, brahmins kept Sanskrit language and literacy out of the reach of the common masses. Now we complain why no one speaks Sanskrit. The exclusivity was also based on caste prejudices where knowledge was reserved only for the upper castes.

Is the whole of France racist because there was a push to ensure that French was the only main language in the country (which it still is to a degree) and French was only understood by white French males at the time. You're transforming an Indigenous debate about Sanskrit into a discussion about caste.

Infact hold a minute how does any of this justify the statement "all hindus practice untouchability"? I mean when did all hindus ask for sanskrit? Most hindus don't really care. Some of your other points are about radical hinduism which a lot of Hindus do not really support. Most are just liberal hindus who do not care about Ramnath Kovind going into the temple or not. If you think radical hinduism = all hindus = practioners of untouchability then you also think radical islam = all muslims = terrorists, an argument that I find no sense in.

1. Do you think that Indians can stop the evil practice of untouchability when we continue to believe in the caste hierarchy?

2. Who has coined the phrases "UPPER caste" and "LOWER caste"?

3. It is so in-built in our minds that we think that Brahmins= UPPPER caste. [Eg- Please see OP's point no. 5] Our Constitution nowhere defines Brahmins to UPPER caste and any other caste to be LOWER.

They will not teach you that what atrocities the scheduled caste had to face but they will teach you that they were and are LOWER caste (or better say- are called).

This isn't a comparison forum. Every religion has its flaws and some of Christianity and Islam's are even worse if we had to list out.

The point of this discussion is to understand whether Hinduism in practice really live up to the 'pure vedic' image we have of it in our heads.

The Downtown Abbey reference was a good one in my opinion. Class prejudices exist in every society. But to what extent are our class prejudices rooted in our unacknowledged caste prejudices - consciously or subconsciously?

I identify as a dalit. And, given that I am clearly a Hindu, how am I to practise untouchability?

I've seen a definite effort to dissociate Dalit and Hindu identities via these debates, not just on LI but also in other political venues. I am aware of what foreign forces are attempting, and let me state unequivocally that you are worse than the Savarna who enslaved us. You see us as a large political organisation and uninformed voting bank that can be mobilised for solidarity. I'm particularly disappointed in all the Savarnas who posted here since not a single person said, "but Dalits are also Hindus." It's seems like everyone has duly accepted and normalised the notion that Dalits do not follow Hinduism.

My identity is not a dice that you may roll depending on the propaganda that is most convenient for you at the time. I come from a community that has endured thousands of years of struggle to have my religious identity trivialised and limited. We are aware that some religious communities and organisations do not want for us to be connected with or referred to as Hindus. Your vote bank politics and effort to normalise this concept would fail here, and most definitely would fail on me. I am a Hindu, and I see the flaws in the faith; I want to remain here and rectify them. I am not switching parties.

I was talking about how the society identifies me? When say “I am a dalit” instead of “I identify as a Dalit”, I am owning up the identity with pride but with the latter I am expressing how the society has defined me into an identity that I might never have chosen to be identified with.

So, "I am identified as a Dalit" would be more accurate for your purposes? "I identify as a dalit" does sound like you're owning up the identity.

Anyway, semantics is only a minor part of it. You're absolutely right when you highlighted the non-inclusionary tone that people use for the dalit identity when discussing hinduism and untouchability.