01. What is known

02. Apposition of opposites

03. Dirtying free people: the effect on tribal people

04. Digression

05. Dirtying free people: the effect on native English people

06. The eerie effects of a non-tangible wedge

07. Abasing Arabic and about Arabian slave trade

Now this brings us to the essential question of: what is improving others? The easiest ideas would be giving them food, giving them education, giving them dress and such other things. Well, food is an essential requirement. Since the word education is a wide one, for the time being one can say, giving information. Dress is also a part of social living. Well, these are only the minimal things, which only make a person barely sustain himself or herself in social living.

These are not the components of improving another person or a group of persons. These are just give the bare essentials to which a citizen of a nation is entitled to, or which he or she acquires by means of work, wealth, pleading, begging, stealing, flattering, sycophancy, representation etc.

Improving is another concept altogether. It is the encoding of certain refining codes that allows a person to live with a level of dignity, self-confidence, basic human rights such as:

Right to the security of a family life secure from intrusive words of outsiders

Right to the security of a family life secure from pejorative indicant words of outsiders

Right to dignified behaviour/s from others

Right to ease of posture and pose which others have or use

Right to sit on a chair

Right to sit at a table

Right to sleep on a cot

Right to be addressed without pejoratives

Right to not to be forced to concede homage, obeisance, and words of respect etc. to others who forcefully can dominate

Right to address and communicate with the officialdom with words which others, including the social and official superiors, use to the officials

Right to accept and address government officials as persons of only equal dignity and stature, and not as divinities and persons to be paid homage and pose of servitude

What is known

This is a concept of human refinement no one really talks about. It may not be true to say that no one knows about these things. It is my personal understanding that people from the feudal language nations and social systems are quite aware of these things, even if these are not in a listed manner as given above, in their minds.

For, in feudal language social systems, people communicate very carefully choosing words and usages with meticulous deliberation, fully knowing the ennobling versus degrading effect they have, the amounts of social freedom encoded in each one of them, and also fully aware of the shackling versus unfettering effect it has on persons or groups of persons.

Apposition of opposites

The funniest aspect of this is that the native-English speakers do not have the slightest of inkling about these things. Yet, they feel that they had been the greatest suppressors in this world. This is because the items listed above do not have any pertinence in languages such as English. Such things cannot be discussed or made understood in a purely English experience.

This is the whole paradox of the theme of human liberty, human dignity, human rights, racism, racial discrimination etc. The greatest of liberators are seen as the greatest of oppressors! People, who bear the most diabolic mental content in their minds, bask in the glorious deceitful limelight by being known as the best of human races!!

Dirtying free people: the effect on tribal people

Actually the very concept of racism has not been properly understood by the native-English-speaking races, prone as they are to imagine themselves to be in the wrong; for feeling repulsion to persons who really do bear evil dispositions.

It is like this: Adhivasi, that is the tribal population who occupied various geographical locations in the nation currently called India, including the Andaman & Nicobar Islands, were very crudely handed over to the Indian administrative domination by the super nut Clement Atlee (British Prime Minister who gave independence to almost all British Colonies all around the world). This nut had no idea about what the real contribution that the British rule had given to the lower class populations of the colonies.

The tribal populations were handed over to the domination of rank outsiders without their own acquiescence or knowledge. Nor were they informed that such a heinous action was being contemplated or done. Now, what is wrong in being summarily handed over to the Indian administration? Well, the problem is that Indian administrators stand on the golden end of the rank feudal respect versus pejorative communication code. Everyone comes under them, and exists at various levels of dirt.

When the tribal populations were brought under the Indian administration, they literally came down below the level of the constables of the Indian forest department and of the constables of the Indian state and central police departments. Both of them are of the dirt level, in terms of stature in their own department, mental calibre, knowledge, information, English proficiency and use of communication codes.

The tribal populations stood without any protection from the pejorative codes. The constables and also everyone above them would use only the dirt level words for He, She, His, Her, Her, Them, Their and much else. There are other words also, like Eda, Edi etc. which have no equivalent words in English. Even the tribal chiefs were made bereft of any protection. No provision was provided in the Indian statues that these words should not be used on the Tribal population, even though Article 46 of the Constitutions states thus:

The State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation.

MY COMMENT: If the state cannot see the using of lower indicant words as social injustice, then it is a very terrible situation. In the US, a using of a simple word like Nigger is regarded as a crime. If that be so, then using a lower indicant word should be considered as a thousand times crime.

There is more to the effect of this intrusive communication system. That of, splitting the social standards into three or more levels, and thus creating a new rift among the populace. I can’t digress into that here. Now, with the whole tribal population forced to rhyme to the new codes of administration wherein their style of livelihood had no value, they on the whole went down the indicant word codes. Almost all Indians would then start using the same lower level indicant words to them. More or less pushing them more into dirt.

This can have many frill effects like the family system going haywire. For, their wives will start seeing their husbands as mere dirt, compared to the Indians, who would be seen as of golden value in the communication codes. In many tribal areas, the native populations strove to keep this problem at bay by barring the entry of Indians. However, this was not an effective frontier, for the Indian forest department guards would enter into their native homelands with impunity and use intrusive lower indicant words on everyone in the tribal areas. They had no protection from this attack which would reach right into the very vitals of their human dignity.

Their status of being placed at the lower end of the newly formed Indian nation, would soon filter down the social communication. Almost all Indians would use only the worst form of the pejorative forms on them. It is not because the Indians are bad or evil, or innately predisposed to suppress them. It is something that cannot be helped. For, it is in the language codes, which works on its own, even if the tribal population is not in the scene.

Now, this is a thing that should be seen as a racial discrimination. However, no one has given it such a definition. The degrading of the tribal population by the majority Indian population. Yet, it is difficult to mention it as that. For, both of them are defined as Indians, even though it is quite understandable that the tribal population wouldn’t have any idea as to when they became Indians.

Digression

I had just completed my graduation. Some of us took a trip to Agasthyargoodam mountain peak in the Sahyadri (Western Ghats) mountain stretch. It is thick forest everywhere, with foliage growing up to various towering heights.

There were 13 of us. All from the Trivandrum local colleges. So naturally, the only extra adventure we knew as a collective group was to shout challenging obscenities into the air. Aarda Poorimone, Yenthada Pundachimone, Koothichimone and such other profanities which are usually the standard expressions of the local college students and the standard communication codes of the South Kerala policemen.

After moving for a couple of hours through the thick vegetation, suddenly we reached a clearing sort of area. We spied a hut on the edge of the clearing. So some of us sang out the standard expletives as a sign of approach. Immediately we saw two young females, running out into the thick forest cover from the hut.

We approached the hut where we saw a young, shrivelled up tribal youth. He was trembling. We asked him for some drinking water to fill our stock. He gave it to us. Then one of us asked him why the females ran into the forest. He simply said, ‘They thought you were forest guards’.

Now, this is one effect of feudal language intrusion into a social system. It is racial discrimination that is more or less non-tangible in English. Now, let us see the other side of this same racism.

SEE this part of a comment that came sneering at me on SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN’S Ramanujam page:

NEERAJ Replying to VED from VICTORIA INSTITUTIONS:

If we are to then say that all of British India (landmass, as large as Europe) had languages inherently feudal, and almost racist in nature therefore all of India shares these social characteristics, it would be naive, near impossible.

MY COMMENT: This commenter has inadvertently accepted the fact that the language codes are feudal and racist.

Dirtying free people: the effect on native English people

The same ‘Indians’ go to English nations and use more or less the same words and usage to and about the native-English speaking natives, who cannot really understand the tongue. However, the negative effect is there, at least felt in varying degrees by persons who are on the lower side of the indicant word codes.

These affected persons may include the youngsters, the refined, the financially lower, persons doing jobs that are seen as menial, low grade work, physical labour and such things. Beyond this, they will feel it, when fellow Englishmen who are seen as doing higher jobs, being given an eerie ennobling. It would be like a wedge is being driven between them.

When they react to the evilness that seem to encase them or attempts to enwrap them, it is called racism. It is racism at the other end. What the White native-English speakers felt and what the tribal populations felt are more or less the same. However, the native-English speakers do not come under the domination of the Indian administration and educational systems.

So, they can react and get defined as racist, while the tribal populations cannot react much, and if they do, they can get suppressed terribly. This is an exact information that should be discussed when racism is debated upon. Would the great thinkers who roam around declaiming about the evils of racism dare discuss things which would reach down to real inner codes of racial repulsion?

READ this article: Decorated British Soldier gets life imprisonment, For murder of Asian waiter

The eerie effects of a non-tangible wedge

Now, if the native-English speakers go down financially, and their social systems crumble and get swarmed by persons from the feudal language nations, then the whole scenario becomes different. Then they are no better than the tribal population who caved in when the assault came in the form of lower indicant words.

Here I think I need to input a minute yet quite powerful reason for the great wind of unrest that gripped many nations in the Middle East. That of a powerful entry and presence of section of people who speak feudal languages. They can literally spit the tight intimacy of the Arab social system by dividing the population into two and drive them both to extremely opposite extremes. A simple example can be mentioned here:

Two Arab women are walking together. There is no sense that they are belong to different social strata. For such a thing is not being envisaged. Two feudal-language-speaking immigrants are discussing about them. One asks the other: Who is that? The answer would be: ‘Oh, she is the doctor’. Here the She would be Avar. Who is the other? The answer would be: ‘Oh, she is the clerk’.

Here the She would be Aval. Actually by these simple two sentences, the two persons are being placed at two extremes of the social order. They will feel it in the eyes, glances, propensity to respect’ versus reluctance to ‘respect’, the speed of obedience, tone and much else.

Actually if the presence of these two feudal language speaking persons continues in the ambience, then slowly the two Arab females would feel a distance between themselves which they cannot bridge. For, the plier that forces the wedge is in the hands of stark outsiders. A slow feel of repulsion for the lower placed person would set in, in the other person. The lower placed person would get to feel the distance and elevation of the other. An anger that was not there earlier would enter into the mind of that female. This exactly is the real code that splits the Middle East nations.

Abasing Arabic and about Arabian slave trade

I may need to speak about Arabs and Arabic. Both of them are unknown entities to me. However, I do understand that in standard Arabic, many of the feudal content common in Asian languages is not there. For example, it is said that there is only one You, one He, one She etc. And also there is no definition of a person to be ‘respected’ and a person to be mentioned in pejoratives.

However, due to their historical association with other Asian and African peoples, their egalitarian stance is much diluted. In fact, many Arabs do not consider Asian Muslims as Islam. The real reason could be traced to the issue that the Asian Muslims do define human beings in varying levels. That in itself wouldn’t be the problem. A haram as per pristine Islam.

The problem would be that they, the

Arabs and the Arab social system would be thus splintered if Asian Muslims are given the free run inside their intimate spaces in the society.

PICTURE DESCRIPTION: Arab Slave Market! Picture by Jean-Léon Gérôme

Beyond that I have been informed that Arabic also has deviated much from its original stance of egalitarianism to fit the Asian and African crowds also in the communication slot. People who do not come as a single unit but appear as splintered layers of peoples have to be thus defined. For this purpose, it is said that non-standard terms that define Asians differently have been encrypted into Arabic.

Now why has this happened? Because the Arabs noticed something eerie in the Asian communication systems. Asians mainly came into their social system as lower employees and may be as slaves. However, these lower guys did seem to have some eerie power in them that could spoil the native social relationships.

Now, there is a tragic issue to be discussed. It is about the Arab participation in slave trade. Actually it is the Arabs who were the persons who raided black homelands and villages and captured many natives as slaves. It is also possible that the higher groups among the blacks also did participate in this trade.

Even now fair-skinned Arabs do raid Sudanese villages and capture people for slavery. Naturally women would be taken for fornication, if for nothing else. However, the Arabs do not view these captured people as human beings. They very powerfully believe that the captured beings are just some higher level animals. Even their children beat them heavily in the firm belief that they are training an animal.

When speaking about training an animal thus, I have to mention the training given to captured wild elephants in India. I have heard that in the earlier times, they would be kept in tight holes dug in the mud, and made to starve. When they are weak, they are pulled out, and given a very brutal training.

They are kept tied in huge iron chains and beaten in the most sensitive spots to eke discipline. The matter may end if the elephants can speak. However, they can’t. And they are addressed and referred to in the lower indicant words in the Malayalam language. And that too by Mahouts who are defined as servant class by their masters. They use blood curdling verbal commands.

Now when English nations attempt to correct this issue in Sudan, it has to first understand what it is that they are dealing with. The enslaving Arabs define these persons as animals. And they despise them as anything other than as slaves.

I need to speak about the social communication codes that may point to some level of self deprecating action in their languages. I have no means to find out if what I am saying is correct. However, I am just mentioning an observation. These people connect their social superiority with the amount of cattle, camel etc that they have. It may point to some feudal code. I remember writing thus in my old book: March of the Evil Empires; English versus the feudal languages!:

Some 20 years ago, I was in a small town in North of Kerala, i.e. in Malabar. I was introduced to three different persons by another man. The Malayalam dialogues may be reproduced here.

· Onu(for him) randu (two) thenga. He has two coconut trees.

· Ayakku(for him) nuuru (hundred) thenga. He has a hundred coconut trees.

· Orkku (for him) ayiram (thousand) thenga. He has a thousand coconut trees.

The reader may here note the differing words used for the word: for him.

For the smallest in society: Onu.

For the higher in society: Ayakku.

For the highest in society: Orkku.

The number of coconut trees a man has, does change a man’s social attributes, starkly. A lower external attribute immensely suppresses a man’s internal attributes, and in many ways, it can have a killing effect on his self-image, and self-confidence.