I assume you already know what is homophobia but you must be thinking, what is shudrical? Before I answer that, I would like to ask you, what is brahminical? Let me guess, it is an ideology which strictly follows the (unjust) caste hierarchy, originating from a caste system of Hinduism. But isn’t there a similar word existing already… it is called casteism.
If you think both are synonyms, then the simple question is… why do you think so? They clearly have different meanings, not according to me but according to the English language. The suffix “-ical” when used with a noun (say noun1), it becomes an adjective for another noun (say noun2), indicating that the second noun (noun2) has qualities pertaining to the first noun. For example: in the sentence “The act was magical”, here the first noun is “magic” and the second noun is “The act”. It indicates that “The act” has/had qualities like “magic”. So technically, the word “brahminical” should mean “something that has brahmin like qualities” and that is intuitive also. Even the dictionary says that as well. If you still think both are synonyms then, by logic, it is implied that all brahmins practices casteism…. (sighs)…. which is very wrong! I am a Brahmin but I believe casteism is an evil thing to practice.
Let us put logic and linguistic aside. One can say, it is called brahminical because brahmins sit on top of the (unjust) caste hierarchy. Then I would like to ask you, so what? The (unjust) hierarchy has a bottom as well, why don’t you use shudrical or any other “-ical” in the hierarchy. Why only the top of the pyramid is being taken to represent its unjust nature? For me, “shudrical” is equal to “brahminical”, if you mean “casteism” by the latter one. Also, more importantly, only using “brahminical” as an alternative to “casteism” just solidifies the (unjust) caste hierarchy because it keeps reminding you who sits at the top. Use “shudrical”, “vaishyic” and “kshatriyacal” interchangeably na.
One might say, “No! Brahmins invented this (unjust) caste hierarchy, they imposed it and propagated it. Hence ‘Brahminical’ word is used.”
It will be wrong to say only brahmins invented caste hierarchy, AFAIK they initially designed caste system. In other words, brahmins invented varna, which in turn created jatis. And then because of greedy human nature, jaatibhed or jaativaad came into existence. Thereafter not only brahmins but every varna started practising it i.e. insulting the ones, which comes below you, in the (unjust) caste hierarchy.
Simply put, substituting “brahminical” for “casteism” is illogical if you are fighting against casteism. But if you are trying to remove one layer from the pyramid instead of breaking it, then the substitution makes sense. It might create another form of casteism, where brahmins are the new untouchables, but who cares. Anyways… let us assume when you said brahminical, you meant casteism (without knowing the consequences) and same with shudrical.
You might ask then, “what the hell do you mean by shudrical homophobia?”. Honestly, for me, it is as non-sensical as brahminical patriarchy. I used it in the headline just to get the attention. Why non-sensical? Because both patriarchy and homophobia exist in the world irrespective of the caste system. Patriarchy simply means a society where male holds the primary power. I think it is gender discriminatory, and it is as gender discriminatory as matriarchy. Had it be “Smash Patriarchy”, I wouldn’t have raised eyebrows.
“Patriarchy exists in India because of the caste-based violence against women!”
Then how come patriarchy exists individually in every caste? And more importantly why patriarchy exists in Brahmins and Harijans at the same time? Nobody did caste-based violence against Brahmin women, and Harijan men never practice caste-based violence against any women because there is nobody below Harijans in the unfair-unjust caste hierarchy. Then how come casteism and patriarchy are related?
I am aware of the violence against women based on their caste and I purely condemn it, but why mix two issues and deal with none. All the articles I’ve read on this row actually smashed violence against women on the basis of caste and conveniently diverted away from patriarchy. They think both are same but it might not be the case. One is an Indian issue and the other one is a global issue. One can cite the example of North-Eastern states where there is matriarchy and no casteism. But then they fail to realize that opposite of patriarchy is not matriarchy, both are equally discriminating.
I acknowledge that there are many activists who are up against the order of patriarchy and demanding equal rights for women (the true feminists). I just wish they understand my point of view that… the moment you add the word “Brahminical” (whose logical and intuitive definition is not what you think)… the moment you add the word “Brahminical” before a social problem (like patriarchy), it sounds like you are addressing/targetting the social problem existing in Brahmins only or the social problem which is existing only because of Brahmins. And from there onwards, all your efforts are consumed explaining your version of “Brahminical” to the rest of the world, whereas during all this the social problem remains intact. Smash patriarchy and smash casteism (and smash homophobia) but address one at a time, please.
@the activists, I think common people of India will actually listen to you if you start empathizing with them. Introspect yourself and think where is the gap in understanding. Which words of yours are easily misunderstood by them? Are you offending one particular caste every time? Which other words you can use in place of those (offensive) words. Don’t you think that if changing your wording has the tiniest possibility of addressing and solving these universal issues in India, it is worth a try?