Home » General » What Professor Balu – S.N. Balagangadhara represents before us?

What Professor Balu – S.N. Balagangadhara represents before us?

Start here


What Professor Balu – S.N. Balagangadhara​ represents before us?

SN Balagangadhara hate speech should be understood how the Brahmin scholarship responding to the Dalits and other marginalized groups and their rigorous scholarship and engagement in academics.

Professor Balagangadhara is a Brahmin from Karnataka and works as a professor in the Ghent University in Belgium. He was invited for an international seminar in Hyderabad happened on 2nd and 3rd November 2015. Ironically the seminar was titled as “Enigma of Law”. In his series of speeches in two days, he spewed venom against Dalits, minorities and marginalised sections of Indian society.

In his hate speech, Balagangadhara ridiculed Dr B R Ambedkar, Muhammad and entire democratic system of India.

1. S N Balagangadhara openly said that, he is a Brahmin that is why he is speaking in that manner, he also said that if anyone calls him an RSS Man (Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh) that is fine with him.

2. S N Balagangadhara at one hand claiming that he is a Brahmin and other hand he and his entire team in the seminar claims that there no caste in India.

3. S N Balagangadhara In all his hate speeches, used only the one word “Bullshit” to describe Dalit scholarship, Dalit Experience and Dalit literature. And a senior professor questioned his arrogance and nonsense, he ridiculed and asked him to read his works.

4. S N Balagangadhara said that Columbia University giving doctorates to incompetent people that is why people like Dr Ambedkar has doctorate. He abused Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar as an eccentric idiot

5. He further said that because of reservations system, only incompetent idiots are teaching in universities.

6. S N Balagangadhara said, In this entire world one cannot criticise two people, In india it is Ambedkar, And in global level it is Muhammad, if anyone criticise them, some thugs will come and beat. (But when he abused Ambedkar and Muhammed in Hyderabad no one came and beat him)

7. S N Balagangadhara said that Entire Ambedkar works are nonsensical and those who compiled that works (like Valerian Rodrigues) never read entire Ambedkar works

8. S N Balagangadhara said, there is science of culture in India, it has long history, and it encouraged independent thinking and enquiry. (So we should understand the above statements as India’s independent “science of culture)

Anyone read or heard SN Balagangadhara can add some more points to the above list. This will be helpful to understand how “Indian Studies” imagining a violent India through their works.

Advertisements

5 Comments

  1. Ramesh Nayak says:

    ha ha ha! looser. The real hate speech is Ambedkar’s writings. Have you ever read them?

  2. Brahmins introduced the VARNA system to discriminate the native brown skinned ASURAS and denied the education to non Brahmins for thousands of years. Buddhism has liberated India from Vedic Brahmanism, but soon Adi Shankara destroyed both Buddhism and Jainism. Muslims kings were against education. People like Prof. Bala Gangadhar is ignorant and his goal to bring the glory days of Aryavartha, where Brahmins were supreme. The Indian democracy is not functioning properly because Brahmin leaders like Nehru selected a Parliamentary system with no Checks and balances and they thought they could divide the society on caste and rule for ever. Federal system could have provided us more accountability but it would not have allowed Brahmins to manipulate that easily. It is time to replace the Parliamentary system with a Federal system, also put term limits and declare assets before and after their term. Since BJP came to power, the RSS/Bajrangdal/VHP have become restless and pushing their agenda to make India by the Brahmins, for the Brahmins and of the Brahmins.

    • [10:11pm, 07/11/2015] Karthik Navayan: Professor S N Balagangadhara hypothesis is based on a false assumption and is a self-serving theory to discount and discredit indigenous movements, tribal movements, and Dalit History. It originates from the genealogy of ‘knowledge systems’. That is, there is a alternate knowledge system, which has its own ontology and epistemology rooted somewhere in a Savaarna pure Brahmin culture in the so-called Indian geographic region. It is distinct from the Western paradigm of knowledge, especially in terms of its role (philosophy) and application (theology). Given this-the argument that ‘this’ pure, cool, cultural and alternate knowledge system over the years got destroyed and eroded-primarily by Mughals and more importantly and substantially by the advent of colonialism is substantiated. The purity and its cultural glory, body of thought, body of knowledge and effects on attitudes and beliefs got destroyed (Geetha’s importance). That means, you now have a frame not only to discredit history but the very system of epistemology in which that history was created, experienced, reported, narrated, negotiated, etc. This is the Dalit history and other indigenous movements because it was written by a Western knowledge system, people who wrote about it were educated in that system (Ambedkar), early scholars were British Historians, Anthropologist, who pursued scholarly understanding of the Indian social-cultural system always had an western epistemic frame. This is basically his thesis and my refute. I have another response to similar arguments made by his student and an arrogant academic. On the other hand-these individuals love Gandhi and Tagore (both educated in Western systems, practiced and preach too, but marked now as alternate-original Indian science/thought). Gandhi’s experience in South Africa as racist is validated but not of Ambedkar who grew in rural India and faced humiliation for years growing up!!! WTF. This school of thought also does not move beyond the doctrine of the Geetha for any other critical approaches to social morality, politics, ethics and cultural life. Similarly, all their claims about independent inquiry and critical thinking about Indian culture are bogus as there is no “substantiated” and “substantial” evidence anywhere (narratives, practices, drama, knowledge system, public sphere, public and civic practices, marriages systems, etc.). All feudal and purely casteist. – Abhiyan Humane
      [10:30pm, 07/11/2015] Karthik Navayan: Professor S N Balagangadhara his son and another Indologist from Belgium Koenraad Elst have been spouting this venom in University of Ghent for a very long time now. A very close friend who’s pursuing his PhD in Physics from the same University and who happens to have attended their seminars told me that three have, in tandem, over time usurped all ‘Indian spaces’ over the years. Their approach has been methodical, in every seminar held at U.Ghent, theories of caste-less India are peddled with great fervour and any query/resistance to the same are met with snide retorts. Not very long ago, Balu had said that it was the English who had perpetuated the caste divisions in India, reinforcing a Mughal practice. He equated this with the Hutu-Tutsi dispute and other tribal divides in Rwanda and elsewhere and went on to prove that caste is a recent construct adopted by Muslims and British in India to divide the Hindus. Because the audience is full of Undergraduate students from Science backgrounds who lap it up only willingly, it’s not terribly difficult to sell these myths. Balu insists that there are no caste divisions in India anymore, and Koenraad and co only cement these lies. – Abhishek Juneja

  3. The Rational Hindu says:

    1. Please publish the transcript of the speech. Or at least some “in context” quotes to show the speaker said what you and the commentators above say, please. This is for the benefit of people reading this and not having attended the lecture.

    2. Unfortunately, your thesis (and some of the commentators above) is rebutted completely by a Columbian Professor Dirks, who is a friend of Kancha Illaiah actually. Is he also “lying” then?

    3. I am afraid honesty demands that you acknowledge extensive archival records from the earliest British times (available publicly post 1986) and DNA population genetics data and you have no way but to agree that your (and some of the commentators above) hypothesis is completely wrong.

    Kindly put sciences into social sciences, not prejudices, not imperial divide and rule…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: