every jati in the sub-continent has exercised 'disciplinary power' over its members for quite looong.. and every member of each jati has exercised 'bio-power' over himself--in order to strive to be a 'good' member of the jati--and over other members, watching their conduct,
and taking part in punishing them if they stray from the jati's norms.. so every jati lived in its own 'panopticon'--always being watched and watching--which was enclosed within a bigger panopticon of the jati system (or caste system) as a whole.. and so on..
long before jeremy bentham, and foucault of course, could even conceive or theorise on these ideas, the governing class in india had devised these mechanisms of power.. but foucault talks of them as products of modernity..!
like the architects of the pyramids were inspired by the eiffel tower..
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
the brahmin institutions--the media, academia, 'civil' (read savarna society) make every crisis into an india thing.. 'the farmers hoisted this flag', 'that flag against india flag..' 'no they, didn't' 'they used violence..' 'the state used violence'.. it's led by secessionists',
'no, it's not'.. and so on.. please note, all the contradictory noises revolve around the india thing.. the point is, the unwritten contract between the punjabi farmers and the indian state (in which the latter got the license to loot and exploit the former) has ended..
the less unionised farmers across the country have also been dumped, roundly.. and this process has been going on for years.. for farmers, this is a life and death crisis.. that's been building up for years.. the msp will do no magic..
why have the brahmin-savarnas in academia taken up foucault so strongly.. the plainest reason is that he doesn't question their power, property or privilege.. if they wanted students to study the knowledge-power nexus, in the indian context, they could teach phule or ambedkar..
if they wanted to teach resistance to dominant discourses, they could refer to kabir, raidas, nanak or basava.. if they wanted students to learn the 'culture of the self' they could explore the buddha.. why foucault?
did india go through the french revolution or the paris commune.. or colonise major parts of asia or the americas or africa? he doesn't fit the indian historical, cultural, socio-economic context even by the furthest stretch of your imagination.. why foucault?
when the congress and bjp sponsored the kejriwal-prashant bhushan etc gang, they had two challenges: they had to reduce the potential of mandal 2 and the rise of behenji and other bahujan leaders in up/bihar..
the issue the gang raised, corruption among politicians and bureaucracy--it was so hypocritical.. their pretense that the political/babu class didn't majorly comprise of their own castes, their own kith and kin was so absurd..
now, when bhushan rants against the sc, it's more funny--like his own family didn't thrive in the same justice and executive system for several generations..