Kejriwal Running Government Successfully From Jail: Priyanka Kakkar https://thewire.in/video/watch-kejriwal-running-government-successfully-from-jail-priyanka-kakkar AAP’s chief national spokesperson Priyanka Kakkar said that the party will not buckle down under the pressure from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and that Kejriwal is running the government successfully from jail. Kakkar also said that despite the cloud of corruption on the AAP ahead of the Lok Sabha polls, all leaders continue to be “kattar imaandars (staunchly honest)”.
Why Congress Mustn't Go Back on Rahul Gandhi's Caste Census, Social Justice Promise Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd https://thewire.in/politics/why-congress-must-not-go-back-on-rahul-gandhis-promise-of-caste-census-social-justice
What the Congress’s Dwija (Brahmin, Baniya, Kayastha, Khatri and Ksatriya) leaders who oppose Rahul Gandhi’s carefully crafted social justice agenda do not understand is that he is re-shaping the Congress in the context of post-Mandal developments and in the given context of the RSS/BJP’s ideological position on caste. Caste identity, particularly, the OBC identity has become a force after the Mandal movement and V.P Singh’s regime implemented the Mandal Commission report (even if it was just one recommendation). Since the Congress under the leadership of Rajiv Gandhi opposed the Mandal report implementation, the Shudras/OBCs started distancing themselves from the party. A large number of Shudras/OBCs believe that the Congress is a Dwija-Muslim party. They believe that is the identity of the party. That identity needs to change for the Congress to win national elections in which the Shudra/OBC vote matters the most.
The Indira -Rajiv’s anti-OBC reservation policy led to the rise of the RSS/BJP in the country. That also led to the formation of many Shudra/OBC regional parties which weakened the Congress. They always recognised the Muslim minority identity in their politics but never accepted caste identities.
Did Periyar call for a genocide of Brahmins ? KARTHICK RAM MANOHARAN Mar 29, 2024 https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/periyar-genocide-brahmins-tm-krishna-sangita-kalanidhi-music-academy-madras-carnatic/article67997754.ece
In hierarchical societies, reformers challenge the status quo with provocative and uncivil speech. Accusing them of hate speech is ill-intentioned.
Hate speech and offensive speech are ruptures in civility. But, importantly, both are not the same...
In an important chapter on hate speech in his book Offend, Shock, or Disturb (2018), Gautam Bhatia writes: “Hate speech legislation is constituted upon the understanding that words can have consequences, that words cannot be separated from broader practices of subordination and inequality in divided societies, and that words can actually impede equal enjoyment of rights, and equal access to social and physical infrastructure”
For example, statements like “white people are racists” and “Black people have criminal tendencies” both rely on generalisations. Both could be legitimately considered offensive. But in racially hierarchical societies where whites enjoy disproportionate social, political, and economic privileges, the first statement is extremely unlikely to cause actual grievous collective harm, while the latter can actually affect the progress of Black people. The latter can be said to constitute hate speech.
Civility has its advantages because often it is the right wing that makes optimal use of the collapse of civility. We can and must insist on civility, but this should not blind one to the difference between uncivil speech from dominant forces and those representing subaltern interests. The former instigates and sustains violence in society; the latter, as provocative as it may be, is a comment on inequalities in society. The use of offensive speech in social justice movements could be hurtful, but it compels a rethinking of society; hate speech, entrenched in dominance, stifles thought, including civil dialogues.