A vs B psyche

My Tamil professor said during one of our classes (1994-1996) that castes cannot be abolished because it is deeply embedded in our psyche and Subramaniya Bharati was an idiot to say சாதிகள் இல்லையடி பாப்பா because even a kid will not believe that. He also presented one simple argument that as long as people work or do some tasks, castes cannot be abolished. After all, castes have their origin in occupation. If not Mudaliar or Chettiar, it will be Engineer or Doctor. In some sense, this is true where doctors prefer to marry doctors and I remember seeing an ad in matrimony recently where there was a preference for a groom working in J2EE technologies.

Actually Bharatiyar's verse goes - சாதிகள் இல்லையடி பாப்பா! குலத் தாழ்ச்சி உயர்ச்சி சொல்லல் பாவம்! I think that castes per se are not a problem and cannot be abolished but it is the 'gradation' or 'hierarchy' which is the issue. Why is there a motivation especially in India to grade humans of all things? Even those who claim that they dont believe in castes have the same attitude in other things. Travel by bus is inferior to travel by train/auto which is inturn inferior to travel by flight/volvo. Infact, I have heard atleast 2/3 managers in AMD, Bangalore who queried if it was Volvo after I said that I commute by bus. Are people going by normal bus inferior to those who travel by volvo? I think the worst part is that people are judged based on these silly things. People do many tasks based on comfort, ease, finances and many other factors. I can buy a shirt from 'high class' showroom or pavement. How does it matter? I dont know if Adoor Gopalakrishnan referred to this as நிழல்குத்து ('Killing the shadow'), you cant (dont want to?) beat the form atleast kill the shadow.

I am not sure if this is a South Indian psyche because in films of all languages - Tamil, Telugu, Kannada and Malayalam - this 'A vs B psyche' is big business. In Tamil, list goes MK Thyagaraja Bhagavathar vs PU Chinnappa, MGR vs Sivaji, Rajni vs Kamal, Vijay vs Ajith, Dhanush vs Simbu etc. I have heard of NTR vs ANR in Telugu, Rajkumar vs Vishnuvardhan in Kannada, Mamooty vs Mohanlal in Malayalam. There are other actors in each language of course, but it seems people preferred to have 'digital' states (0/1) or clear 'leader'. In TN, it has almost become big business with dialogue writers, lyricists who thrived on this 'simplification'. Probably there is no debate that Sivaji Ganesan was the best actor and lot of directors agree that he was a delight because his output was always more than what the director expected. What is less known about Sivaji is that even at the height of popularity, he was quite content to play second fiddle in films. Sabash Meena is a classic example where infact he not only suggested Chandrababu for the role but also recommended higher pay. I am not sure why people are crying hoarsely that Kamalhassan is the 'heir' to Sivaji Ganesan. Neither is he capable nor has he given space for others to perform, especially in recent times. Rajni seems to have 'drama' background and is ready to give space for others to perform, like Sivaji and Kamal. Popular scene in one of his last few movies, Padayappa (2:52 to 9:52) is an example for this. Some may miss the point that Rajni despite a 'great entry' has no dialogues for the MAIN 4-5 minutes. On the other hand, I am not aware of a similar scope for actors if Kamal acted. Of course, director gets the main credit but actors have to agree to play their part. It is just sufficient to say Kamal and Rajni are great actors who have done a high number of films. Doing an 'A vs B' exercise has no point. Ian Chappell said the same when an Indian (who else?) called Sanjay Manjrekar asked him where he would 'put' Shane Warne among greats like Sobers or Bradman.