Prof. Sarukkai, Dr. Ambedkar, and the ethics of touching yourself.

Untouchability isn't about touching people, it is about pathogen avoidance- the culturally learned reflex to keep a distance from strangers or those with a way of life associated with greater exposure to pathogens.

Isolated populations are at greatest risk and probably originated the practice. However, if different occupational groups kept different types of livestock, then there might be a reason to keep a distance from an endogamous group which habitually rears a different animal to the one your own community rears. This is because you are likely to have lower immunity to specific zoonotic diseases to which the other other community is likely to have developed herd immunity.

Regions which have a winter where temperatures fall below zero may have less need for pathogen avoidance based customs. Equally, severe cold may mean that people have to relieve themselves close to where they eat or sleep. Lower ambient temperature may reduce the speed at which pathogens multiply and this might mean that people need be less fastidious.

However, it is generally frowned upon to jam your thumb up your ass and then suck upon it or rub your eyes with it.

Perhaps this is what the erudite Prof Sundar Sarukkai- mentioned in Print as one of India's most promising Philosophers- is getting at when he says in a paper on the 'Phenomenology of Untouchability'-

That is, in the most essential sense untouchability is actually about the always present, potential untouchability not of another but of one-self.

I think this is only true if you habitually have your thumb jammed up your ass coz stuff that comes out of you pollutes- it harbors pathogens- which is why you shouldn't eat your own feces.

Sarukkai takes a different view-

This is most clearly manifested in the way the structure of untouchability unfolds in the Hindu practice. 

It has been argued that untouchability is a characteristic of the brahmin community.

Brahmans hang around cows and come from somewhere else. The autochthonous population kept them at a distance and didn't accept food or water from them. Thus in the late nineteenth century, during a famine, Santals refused to accept food prepared by High Caste Bengali speakers- generally Brahman. This makes sense. The 'langar' (feeding center) should be run by your own people, not guys from somewhere else who might carry germs we have little immunity to.


Prof. Sarukkai goes on to write-

Quigley, for example, emphasises this characteristic in order to support a different reading of caste. He notes that brahmins “can be Untouchables, and Untouchables, as ritual specialists, are priests” (Quigley 1993: 16).

Quigley didn't notice that Bali has Brahmins but no untouchables. Japan has no Brahmins but plenty of untouchables. The dichotomy, in India, is between Brahmin and Shraman (i.e. Jain or Buddhist monk) not between untouchable and Brahmin. 

His rereading of caste critiques Dumont’s observation that the hierarchy in the caste system occurs through the opposition of the pure and the impure. He finds Dumont’s characterisation of the opposition between spiritual authority (brahmins) and the temporal authority (of the kings), which leads to the essential disjunction between status and power, as not being empirically supported.

Brahmins may be Kings and vice versa. 

Based on this, Dumont constructs brahmins and the untouchables as extreme contrasts. Quigley argues that the fact that the notion of impurity is very much a part of a brahmin priest implies that one cannot use the pure-impure axis, following Dumont, to posit contrasts between different castes. Firstly, Quigley points out that there are at least six types of “brahmin personae” such as the renouncer, spiritual preceptor, non-priest, a personal priest, temple priest and death priest (ibid: 54). He then goes on to point out the various ways by which these brahmin priests become impure. He also points to the reaction of members of other communities who look down uponthe brahmins, in terms of their impure status either in accepting gifts or “who digest the sin, evil, and death of others” (ibid: 80). Quigley’s attempt in his book is to make explicit the political dimensions involved in the creation of a hierarchy and in particular to emphasise the role of kingship in this act. His and other such similar attempts to rewrite the narrative of caste in India miss one essential point: an inquiry into the nature of untouchability.  Ambedkar was aware of the enduring idea of the impure among brahmins and other castes but he clearly points out to the many differences. He notes that there is only a notion of temporal “untouchability” in the case of brahmins and others who are in a state of impurity (Ambedkar 1948). There is no encoding of this state into one of a permanent stature. The acts of propitiation to get rid of the “impure” state are not available to the untouchables. To point out the brahmins too had moments of untouchability cannot allow one to equate them with the untouchables.

Actually, this isn't true. There is no inter-dining with 'sin-eaters'. Indeed, in the more extreme form of the ritual, caste is lost. A Dutch scholar observes

 The year 2001 was a tragic one for Nepal and the royal family. Ten members of the royal family died at the Narayanhity Palace massacre on June 1st. The late King Birendra died that evening and Crown Prince Dipendra was declared the new monarch on June 2nd, but he died the next day. King Birendra and the other members of the royal family were given a state funeral on June 2nd and King Dipendra on June 4th. The King is believed to be an incarnation of Lord Vishnu when he is alive during his reign over the kingdom. He is a god on earth. On the 11th day after death he will return to the heavenly abode of Vishnu. Crucial in this process where the king transcends from this world to heaven is the katto-ritual whereby a Brahman priest eats a small part of the king’s body. The priest loses his caste by this ritual and becomes an outcaste expelled from the nation. The kings were cremated at Pashupatinath which is the holiest place in Nepal. Between 4500-5000 people are cremated each year at Pashupatinath, and the royal funerals took place at a separate ghat in front of the temple.

Sarukkai, however, has a different theory- one based on the notion that 'touching oneself' is the source of untouchability. He mentions the Tamil notion of 'madi' which is similar to 'khalis' for Muslims and which relates to ritual impurity. Shiah Muslims used to consider all infidels 'najis' and thus Jews were not allowed to walk in the street during a rain shower lest water which touched them fell upon a Muslim who would then lose ritual purity. Notice that 'madi' is lost if you wank or shove your thumb up your butt. Obviously, from the phenomenological point of view, the untouchable 'other' represents one's own repression of self-touching. This is particularly important for Professors who, though permitted to play pocket billiards, are required to refrain from jizzing over students in the lecture hall.

 

mbedkar conceptualises this difference in terms of the impure and the untouchable. So, what Quigley calls as untouchable in the case of brahmin priests, Ambedkar would call as the impure. Is there any merit to creating such a distinction? Ambedkar’s distinction can be retained if we understand that untouchability is not about impurity as well as recognising that impurity is not untouchability. How do we make this distinction?

 The brahmin’s “untouchability” is that one does not want to be touched and is not that one is refused the touch.

Touch does not matter here. When the Brahmin is in a state of purity, he should not be polluted by coming into the presence of inauspicious or proscribed things. Madi would not be lost by receiving the touch of the preceptor or that of fellow participants in the ritual being performed. However, if a kite flying overhead drops its prey in front of them, then purity would be lost even if no touching occurred.

Ambedkar wasn't a fool. He knew 'untouchability' wasn't about touching, it was about auspiciousness and impurity. There's a lot of touching during sex and when a person is sexy, that sort of naughtiness happens unless, like me, you have been beforehand in touching yourself or, at any rate, everybody refers to you as a wanker.

The touched-touching dichotomy which informs this position is one that is characteristic of touch. I agree with Ambedkar that these transient, voluntary states should not be equated with the notion of being an untouchable.

Touching does not matter. It is the presence of impurity which matters. Sarukkai himself gives a relevant example-

 However, we should note here another class of brahmins who are “permanent untouchables” and these are the Āchāryas (for example, in the Rāmānuja tradition). These Āchāryas are permanently untouchable but since their untouchability is already inscribed within the notion of superior untouchability they retain this superior nature. Such Āchāryas, for example, will not eat food which is cooked even by their wives. They too, like the untouchables, gain their status of absolute untouchability through birth. The children (at least the eldest son) of Āchāryas usually continue to be Āchāryas. Even brahmins in a state of purity cannot touch these Āchāryas, or watch them eat and so on. Untouchability for these people is not about attaining a state of untouchability and then coming out of it. It is hereditary, it is part of tradition and they are in a permanent state of being an untouchable, even to their family and kin. Here, it is not about purity and impurity but about a state of being.

How do these guys have sons? Do they not touch their wives? It is a different matter that the food they consume should be pure- i.e. shielded from other's eyes- so there is no 'aashrav' of karma binding particles. However, this food is cooked by Brahman males in a state of purity.

No doubt, the Acharya will have a bath after playing with his kids and before performing a ritual. But it is stretching credibility too far to say they never touch anybody.

Sarukkai has a PhD in Physics. He is a Philosopher of Science. Yet he writes-

 What should capture our attention is the bipolarity in those who are untouchables. Agreeing with Ambedkar, we can distinguish those caste-individuals in moments of impurity as being in a transient state and hence not being an untouchable. But the special case of the Āchāryas suggests something radically different.

It might if they managed to get their wives pregnant without touching them. The fact of the matter is, this type of play-acting only arose- that too in the breakaway Iyengar sect- because these hereditary Acharyas were trying to pretend they were as 'pure' as Monastic Nambudri Sankaracharayas who in turn were imitating Jain and Buddhist Monastic Acharyas.

Mainstream Brahmanism, however, has always been a family affair with the wife being required to participate in important ceremonies.

It is that the notion of being an untouchable is an essential and necessary component of being a brahmin.

This is sheer nonsense. The King or the High Priest or the Chief Abbot may be 'taboo' but the run of the mill Vedic Brahman has never had any such pretensions.

Ritual purity is as important to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and various other Hindu castes. The thing probably arose out of a spiritual equivalence being made with customary pathogen avoidance behavior. Of course, a King or Abbot claiming God like powers might not wish to be seen eating or shitting like the hoi polloi so as to preserve his mystique.

To be a brahmin is to be an untouchable, a permanent untouchable.

No it isn't. Brahmins are considered auspicious. To see one is considered a good omen.

For most brahmins there are only moments of untouchability and they do not have the discipline or practice to reach this state of permanent untouchability.

Most Tamil Brahmans reject Ramanuja and his Iyengar followers. The mainstream holds that a 'jivanmukta' is possible- indeed, that is the aim- so the culmination of spiritual discipline and practice would make one touchable to all. The possibility of pollution would have been defeated.

But for the most exalted spiritual leaders the moments of untouchability are permanent.

Nonsense! The Mahatma or Maharishi can't be polluted or rendered inauspicious by anything at all.

In fact, being a permanent untouchable, one that is passed on hereditarily,

How? By magic? Does this learned Professor really not know how babies are made?

is what distinguishes these brahmin spiritual leaders.

Of a breakaway, minority, sect.

Here is an intriguing paradox: what distinguishes the state of untouchability of these people in contrast to the untouchables of Ambedkar?

This is not intriguing and it is not a paradox anymore than the following question is a paradox- 'what distinguishes the state of untouchability displayed by Sean Connery in the film 'the Untouchables' and the people whose cause Ambedkar championed?'

This is stupidity, nothing more. Sean Connery is 'Untouchable' because he is so brave and so immune to bribery that he can't be touched, that is corrupted, by Al Capone.

Guys who say 'I'm so special, no one should see me eat coz it would hurt my mojo' are legitimating a claim to superior status. Other people who are kept at a distance and abused and exploited should take umbrage at insulting epithets applied to themselves. Ambedkar helped get such abusive and unconscionable actions criminalized. I'm not saying we need to throw Iyengar Acharyas in jail even if they have absurd beliefs- freedom of Religion and all that, dontchaknow- but it is right and proper to jail people who practice 'untouchability' in contravention to the established and salutary law of the land.

To be clear, one thing is silly, the other is a crime- a clear enough distinction.

Untouchability in the former case is obviously a positive virtue whereas in the latter case it is a negative “fact”.

The former case is the same as the latter case- only the 'touchable' is superior even to people of his own class who therefore are untouchable to him. He is not 'untouchable' to them. They can't rape him with impunity or beat him with a stick or prevent him from entering a place of worship or employment or Higher Education. On the contrary, seeing his face or paying him obeisance, is highly auspicious.

What is it in the nature of untouchability that allows this accretion of value? 

'Untouchability' is merely a figure of speech. In the Indian context, it has to do with the notion that certain people should be kept at a distance because they are impure, inauspicious, or dirty or disreputable in some way.

And what is it that resists the inversion so that the positive virtue becomes a characteristic of all untouchables?

Nothing. This is a pure delusion on the Professor's part. The Acharya is touchable. People pay big 'dakshina' for the privilege of touching his feet. These people are (relatively speaking) untouchable from his point of view because they are inferior to him.

Consider what happens when you go to a strip-club. The bouncer prevents you from touching the stripper. This does not mean that you can't pay to have sex with her outside the bar. What is not allowed is your motor-boating her and jizzing on her leg. At any rate, this is what I have been told. I have not frequented that sort of sleazy joint since my days as a P. Chidambaram look-alike Chippendale.

While there may be useful social and political reasons that might explain this phenomenon, here I am interested in exploring the metaphysical consequences of the same. The importance of the idea of the “untouchable” among the brahmins is indicative of the essentiality of this notion to the very definition of what is it to be a brahmin.

As a Brahman, I have been taught, as my ancestors were taught, no Brahman is 'untouchable' save by some polluting or degrading practice. What is essential to the definition of the task the Brahman, as opposed to Adhvaryu or Udgatr or Ritvik, performs is knowledge, not purity or ritual dexterity.

A brahmin is not one who belongs to a particular community – this is merely the sociological interpretation of being a brahmin.

Nonsense! A brahman is a guy who is accepted by other brahmans as one.

Being born into the community is not enough to be called a brahmin unless the male member undergoes the investiture of the sacred thread.

Which he did so as to be accepted as a brahman by other brahmans. However, this is no longer necessary.

Different subgroups then have other initiations that are needed before one can become a full-fledged member of this community. (We need to reflect on this constant “brahminising” of the brahmins that is needed in order to continue to be a member of that community in contrast to membership criteria in other castes.)

What is this idiot blathering about? He is my age and from my part of T.N. Does he really think there was a single Vadadesi Vadama Smartha family which would not have married off their daughter to me- poonal or no poonal- if I hadn't been not merely ugly and ignorant but also crap at Math? At the margin, my horoscope may have mattered- but there's always a work-around.

A Brahmin is a Brahmin even if both he and his father were rabid Marxists. What matters is if they married within their sub-caste and whether they gained power and prestige from their posturing.

In the case of one sect of brahmins, it is necessary for a person to have undergone the panchasamskāram which includes the upanayanam (sacred thread). Unless a person has done the five samskāras he cannot perform most of the rituals. For example, a person who has not done these samskāras cannot cook in various rituals. Orthodox brahmins (of certain sects) will not eat food that is cooked by somebody who has not undergone these samskāras. Thus, one becomes a brahmin in ways that are unique to that group.

What is this shite? Does this Professor really believe that a son who got into IIT and emigrated to the US won't be considered the 'kulbushan' crest-jewel of his lineage? If the grandson shows his good-nature by making his grandfather a bowl of American style breakfast cereal, the old man, even a hereditary Acharya will deign to relish it as though it was the most ambrosial 'prasad' from the Great Temple.

But the most important marker in becoming a brahmin has to do essentially with the possibility of being an untouchable to members of their own community.

Utter rubbish. The most important marker is knowledge or success in a knowledge based industry. Being a Chess Grand-Master or founding a billion dollar I.T company or winning a STEM subject Nobel is the way to go.

Moreover, the most exalted state is reached when one is in a permanent state of untouchability.

No. For the majority of Tambrams, the most exalted state is that of the jivanmukta who can be touched by anyone or anything without running any hazard of adverse 'aashrav'.

It is well known that membership to a brahmin community is not through hereditary alone. It is a necessary condition that one is born into a brahmin household but it is not sufficient. The sufficient condition that makes one into a brahmin is related to the idea of becoming an untouchable.

Rubbish! The sufficient condition is it being common knowledge that you are a Brahman. Thus Rajiv and Rahul are Brahmans once they say they are and it thus becomes 'common knowledge'. It does not matter that Feroze Gandhi was a Parsi. It is common knowledge that the marriage was Vedic- in which case the imputation is that Feroze was 'shuddified' and counts as a Magha Brahman. At any rate, that was the decision of the Brahmans of U.P.
Rahul has only recently come out as a Brahman. Still he hadn't said he was a Christian, so- since his Mum too had a Hindu marriage- Brahmanhood was 'asvamika svatva' a property unclaimed but still imputable to him unless he explicitly rejected it.

Thus, I would like to suggest here that the most dominant marker of being a brahmin lies in the concept of untouchability, lies in the potential of an individual to become an untouchable. How so? A brahmin is one who not only has access to temporal and potential untouchability but also to permanent, hereditary untouchability. But then why is it that the brahmin’s untouchability is valorised whereas the untouchability of the untouchables transforms into most inhuman forms of treatment?

Everybody has potential access to permanent hereditary untouchability of this sort. All you have to do is to is brainwash some people into joining your cult. Then tell them that they must not touch you or see you eating. You can say this applies to your Dad and your Son as well. That's it. That's all it takes.

However, the majority of Brahmans will give you a wide berth coz you are a freakin' nutjob.

Our Philosophy professor first makes an absurd statement about Brahmans and then shows that it isn't absurd in the light of some worthless shite spouted by a cretin.

The philosophical answer lies in the notion of supplementation, a concept that has been effectively used by Derrida in a completely different context. 

That context was masturbation. Rousseau gave himself a hernia jacking off. Derrida termed it 'a dangerous supplement'. Thus, our erudite Professor will be able to show that Untouchability arises from touching oneself so incessantly that you give yourself a hernia.

Untouchability and the Logic of the Supplement 

Let me begin with the idea of a sign. A sign is that which stands for something else. Our access to the signified is mediated through the representation through signs. But the dominant metaphysics underlying this process gives a primacy to that which is signified, because of which the sign is always placed hierarchically lower than the signified.

Thus the word 'pizza' is lower than an actual 'pizza'. That's why if I give you ten quid to go get me a pizza and you come back and give me a piece of paper with 'pizza' written on it, I punch you in the head and take my money back.

Derrida engages with this idea through the analysis of writing (Derrida 1976).In western thought, writing has dominantly been seen to be derivative to speech, which itself is derivative to an originary thought, an essence or presence.

Derrida was wrong. His contemporary Westerners considered writing to be superior to speech. 'Put it in writing' is a common phrase. Writing involves a felix culpa in abstracto- a higher duty of care. What is said in the heat of the moment would at best involve felix culpa in concreto. Thus if I call you a bastard, I have a defense if I can show we commonly use such vulgar language and nobody takes it seriously. However, if I write a letter to someone saying 'This man is a bastard'- then I have to show that either that the man is genuinely illegitimate or that his conduct is reprehensible.

Whether it is Rousseau’s comment that writing is a “dangerous supplement” to speech or a more virulent opinion that writing is evil, there is a continued tradition of suspicion towards writing.

This is sheer nonsense. Writing is considered more exact and trustworthy than speech because of the greater effort and forethought involved. It has the quality of akrebia- or precision. That is why complicated contracts are written down in lawyerly language. Speech under oath has a similar standing to writing. However, it is likely that that speech is being transcribed as it is uttered and the speaker would have been cautioned accordingly.

Derrida’s critique of the binary of speech and writing where speech is seen to be “superior” to writing leads him to suggest that writing does not act as a mere “supplement” to speech.

Derrida was an idiot. It was obvious that writing, not speech, was the foundation of the legal and commercial and political world into which he was born.
As a Jew, Derrida should have known that even the 'bat kol'- the voice from Heaven- can't supersede the written Talmud.

A supplement suggests that there is a lack in what is supplemented. But it cannot just be a mere representation of this lack or absence. What this process of supplementation points to is the fact that the supplemented is incomplete and necessarily depends on the supplement.

In the modern world, it is the written agreement which matters. There may be a certain amount of 'cheap talk' which puts the contracting parties in the right mood but the required 'costly signals' are determined according to the written clauses of the contract.

It is the supplement that brings to presence the signified.

In a largely illiterate Society, this may be true. However, in our age, reading a Contract does not cause us to believe that the parties actually said these words to each other. We know that lawyers hammered out the details and then explained it to their clients.

The consequence of this move is that the signified is not accessible to us other than through the presence of the signifiers – every signified therefore is a trace of the signifier.

Sheer nonsense. Important meetings or deliberations were being taped by the time Derrida's book came out. This meant that there was both an audio recording as well as a shorthand transcript (which would be preserved along with the typed record) and so everything was already accessible. Nowadays, of course, thanks to the smartphone, we have full video records of important conversations.

In the case of writing, thought, which is supposed to be represented by writing twice-removed, is not completely accessible without writing.

We live in an age when A.I's can write stuff scarcely distinguishable from that of a journalist or academic. Thought is not a necessary condition for Writing. Indeed, our good Professor's last sentence is itself an example of thoughless writing.

Not only is thought thus incomplete without the supplement it is also the case that the supplement adds to the original thought.

Nonsense. A thought is complete when it causes the action it counsels. Most thoughts don't need to be expressed. Supplements don't add anything save noise to signal. Stuff like this-

It is the supplement which makes the originary possible.

What our Professor is saying is that only writing this shite made it possible for him to form the stupid thoughts this shite expresses. He is wrong. He could have stopped himself from writing this nonsense by thinking a little more about how silly he was being.

Thus, Derrida (1976: 304): “The supplement is always the supplement of a supplement. One wishes to go back from the supplement to the source: one must recognise that there is a supplement at the source.”

Nixon kept audio-tapes of everything that happened in the Oval office. These tapes were transcribed. If Derrida were right that these were not records but 'supplements' then Nixon could have completed his term without fear of prosecution.
Being a lawyer, not a stupid French psilosopher, Nixon resigned so as to get a Presidential Pardon. Why? Because records aren't supplements.

Speech and Writing

Speech is thus not “independent” of writing; writing is not a mere supplementation of speech.

Speech is wholly independent of writing. Try it. Say aloud "I am writing this'. Have you actually written anything? No. Why? It is because the two activities are wholly different. I can speak Tamil but can't write it. I can read Persian, but can't speak it. In neither case, does any 'supplementation' occur.

As Culler notes, “the thing supplemented (speech) turns out to need supplementation because it proves to have the same qualities originally thought to characterise only the supplement (writing)” (Culler 1997: 11).

Speech has the qualities of being audible and evanescent. Writing is visible and more permanent. They can't 'prove to have the same qualities' save by the Logical principle ex falso quodlibet- if you start with something false, then any old nonsense logically follows. If I say, dogs are married to cats then I can say, the fact that dogs need to have a cats as spouse proves that untouchability arises because people keep touching themselves. I mean why else would dogs be marrying cats? Man's most loyal friend is clearly protesting against Untouchability as caused by rampant self-abuse.

The logic of supplementation gives us various possible alternatives of the relation between the supplement and the supplemented.

As does the logic of dogs marrying cats.

Barbara Johnson (1990) suggests the following possibilities: If A is the supplement to B, then the relation between A and B can be one or more of the following – added to, substitutes for, superfluous addition to, makes up for the absence of, makes for deficiency, usurps the place of, corrupts the purity of, necessary for restoration of, as that which the other is lost without, is a danger to, is a remedy to, protects against direct encounter with, says meow when mounted by its doggy husband, says woof woof when nagged by its feline wife, says meow woof in response to a spousal query of the form 'woof meow?',and so on. Even this brief entry into the idea of the supplement points to its potential use in understanding untouchability in the Indian context. The popular understanding of caste privileges the axial polarity between the brahmins and the untouchables, also articulated along the pure-impure opposition.

Is the 'popular understanding' really so shite? Perhaps, among Hindus. But what about Dalit Muslims in U.P?  How is it that their reports of being treated as untouchables is more highly corroborated by non Dalit Muslims?

Like the speech/writing binary or man/woman, the brahmin/untouchable binary is not only a constructed opposition but one in which the latter is inferiorised with respect to the former.

Speech is considered inferior to writing. Man/woman is more to the point. There is a link between misogyny and oppressive and insulting behavior to both the 'proletarian' as well as those who do useful work for very little reward.

This allows us to consider the possibility that the untouchable acts as a supplement to the brahmin.

No it does not. Derrida was well read. He knew his Durkheim and Marcel Mauss. In any case, he was Jewish. The corollary of this notion would be that the Jew is the supplement to the Nazi.

It is moreover a “dangerous supplement” and one that is intrinsically “dangerous” to the signified, the brahmin.

Writing is a 'dangerous supplement' if it causes one to neglect memorization, because you can't take notes with you into the exam. Masturbation is a dangerous supplement if you end up jerking off instead of consummating your marriage.
But Writing isn't bad in itself. Nor is cracking one off if your g.f is out of town. Untouchability, however, is an atrocious crime punishable by Indian law.

It moreover, to use one characterisation of Johnson’s logic of the supplement, “corrupts the purity of” the brahmin.

but that logic also causes dogs to say 'woof, meow' to their feline spouses.

To use another characterisation, it “protects against direct encounter with” the brahmins.

How? My posh cousins in Hampstead want to be protected from direct encounters with me. They are smart people. If there really is a way to use untouchability to keep me away, they would have found it by now.

The discourse of the untouchable illustrates its construction as a supplement in these various descriptions.

No! It is the discourse of the cat married to a dog which illustrates its construction as a supplement in Johnson's various descriptions.

Derrida’s argument that the supplement is all that there is, that the supplement is to be found at the source, allows us to engage with the dominant discourse of untouchability in a different manner.

Why only get engaged? Why not marry the dominant discourse and say 'meow woof'?

The discourse on brahmins and untouchability clearly indicates that the notion of untouchability is seen as a supplement to the notion of a brahmin.

Seen by whom? Only a handful of Credentialised cretins who don't understand Derrida. Anyway, Untouchability exists in Japan where there are no Brahmans as well as Shiah Iran where some communities are considered 'najis'.

However, the critical analysis of the supplement suggests that it is impossible to sustain untouchability as a “mere” supplement. It, instead, is to be found in the source – the brahmin – itself.

It is to be found there only by one cretin- nobody else.

The example of the permanent untouchable among brahmins is an added illustration of the importance of the idea of untouchability among brahmins.

This example does not exist.

To be the highest brahmin is to be an untouchable but not of the kind that characterises the untouchables.

The highest brahmin is the one whose feet other brahmins and devotees touch.

In other words, the necessity to construct a group called the untouchables arises in large part due to the inherent presence of the notion of untouchability in the very idea of a brahmin.

Sheer nonsense! America has the idea of the 'Boston Brahman'. Where is its untouchable? There is no evidence of untouchability in the Rg Veda. Yet it is from there that the very idea of a brahman originates.

What then are the implications of this argument? It is first and foremost the recognition that untouchability as a notion is intrinsic to brahmins.

I'm a Brahman. How come I don't have this notion? History teaches that there have been long periods when Buddhism or Jainism flourished while Brahmanism was on the backfoot. Yet untouchability flourished then. In the Mahabharata there is a Vyadha Gita- 'butcher's song'- but there are no Buddhist upasakas who had that type of profession.

And this notion of untouchability is not about the rituals associated with impurity. It is actually about the characteristics of the non-temporal, permanent and hereditary characteristics of untouchability.

Which don't exist.

The creation of a supplementary community of untouchables is a necessary consequence of the inability of brahmins to attain the “pure” state of untouchable.

Yet there are untouchables in Japans where there were never any Brahmans.

But in creating this supplement the pure state of untouchability that characterises the Āchāryas, for example, is converted into a negative virtue. In other words, the untouchables are the supplemented Āchāryas and this supplementation is needed for the possibility of having a community of brahmins whose members no longer carry the burden of “pure untouchability”.

Brahman sin-eaters who consume the flesh of the deceased immediately lose cast and become untouchable exiles. This Professor thinks venerable Iyengar Acharyas are untouchable. This is not true. Their wives and kids cuddle with them. Their friends slap them on the back. Their disciples touch their feet and feel thrilled when receiving a benedictory pat on the head.

Thus, if there were no creation of a supplemented class of untouchables there is no possibility of having a community of brahmins.

Yet, we see that Brahminism pre-existed untouchability and continues to flourish after the thing disappeared- often in new lands where the practice was always unknown.

The untouchables are the supplemented brahmins in the final analysis.

So they don't really matter very much. We are wrong to look up to Dr. Ambedkar. He was just the supplement to the community from which his second wife came.

In Derridean terms, the brahmins are like speech and the untouchables are like writing.

Because the maha-Dalit castes are so highly literate.

Ironically, the literal meaning of a brahmin is essentially related to speech and the dalits have been essentially reduced to possessors of a body – the material substratum on which writing is possible. Speech is temporary, transitory and is evanescent – and is untouchable! Writing is permanent, embodies the idea of “hereditary” – and ironically, is touchable! The possibility of such reversal clearly illustrates the logic of supplementation.

No. It illustrates the reductio ad absurdum of Credentialized Psilosophical Cretinism.
The utterance 'woof, meow' is untouchable though it solemnizes the nuptials of cats and dogs both of which can be touched and whose progeny embody the idea of 'heredity'. The possibility of such reversal clearly illustrates the utter worthlessness of 'the logic of supplementation'.

Thus we can see how the critique of speech suggests a way of critiquing the dichotomy between brahmins and dalits.

Indeed! Critique of 'woof, meow' suggests a way of critiquing the dichotomy between dog husbands and cat wives.

Process of Supplementation How exactly does this process of supplementation act to create a community of untouchables as something necessary for the sustenance of the idea of a brahmin?

To be exact, this process of supplementation acts as a way to write any old bollocks  and thus become necessary for the sustenance of the idea that all dogs marry cats.

This occurs through the creation of inverting the elements of the experience of touching.

Which occurs when you touch yourself and jizz all over the ceiling.

The supplementation occurs through the change from “not wanting to be touched” to “refusing to touch”.

And explains why vibrators are selling so well

It is interesting that both these imperatives come from the brahmin – that is, the untouchable brahmin is one who refuses to let others touch him and refuses to touch others.

But who still fathers kids coz if dogs are marrying cats and saying 'woof, meow' then we live in Bizzaro world and everything is nonsense.

In the case of the untouchables, neither is the case. I suggest that such a shift can happen only in the case of touch because of the touch-touched relation.

This cretin doesn't get that untouchability is not about touching at all. It is about preventing the alterity approaching one in any way for fear of contagion.

It is in this sense that untouchability as we know it today arises in consequence of the metaphysics of touch and the supplementation of the shift from being touched to touching.

Sadly, this sense is nonsense.

And since touching is always an integral part of being touched they can only be in a reversible relation and not in a hierarchical relation thereby suggesting that the brahmins and the untouchables actually exemplify a reversible relation between each other.

My proctologist puts his finger up my ass. I am not allowed to put my finger up his ass. He touches me in an intimate place. I do nothing of the sort to him.

Similarly, when going through airport security, I am patted down- that is touched. I am not allowed to pat down- that is touch as I have been touched.

Touching is not an integral part of being touched. Cardinal Pell was touching kids inappropriately. That is why he is going to jail. Touching can be about power. It can encode hierarchy. It does not exemplify a 'reversible relation between each other'. A man who rapes a woman is not himself being raped.

This Professor seems to be living on another planet!

These are not just theoretical musings without empirical support! An interesting social phenomenon in Indian societies

Not just Indian, this happens in all societies at a similar level of development.

is the existence of communities who specialise in carrying various burdens of other communities. The professional mourners of Rajasthan are a community of women who do the job of mourning when somebody dies. This is one characterisation: these are women of a lower caste who are “hired as professional mourners upon the death of upper caste males... Their job is to publicly express grief of family members who are not permitted to display emotion due to social status.” Quigley (1993) mentions the Mahabrahmins whose job is to carry the spirits of the dead. Indian society is filled with such examples of “outsourcing”. In another book where he relates kingship and untouchability, Quigley gives the example of brahmins who hug a dying king in order to take the king’s sin away (Quigley 2005: 130). Having absorbed the sins of the dying king, the embodied sinner leaves the kingdom never to return. This practice continues to this day; Quigley cites the example of the royal murders in Nepal a few years back when similar rituals were performed. 

In the case of the untouchables, the untouchability of the brahmins is outsourced to the dalits who then carry that burden.

No. 'Sin-eating' Brahmans get paid to lose caste or go into exile. They can't outsource this to anyone.

Recognising this move of supplementation is first of all a political recognition and enables specific political action.

No. Talking worthless bollocks crowds out meaningful action of any type.

Saying all this might not be saying much given the inhuman practices associated with untouchability.

It is saying less than nothing. It is merely indulging in academic name dropping and virtue signalling a social concern of a modish type.

However, we should also remember that the deconstructive moves initiated through the analysis of the logic of supplementation have generated new and liberatory ideas which have been important in struggles against various types of hegemony.

Utterly false! Some stupid Professor pretending to be fighting the good fight by uttering incoherent nonsense is not fooling anyone.

Why pretend any of these vaunted 'struggles against various types of hegemony' has had any positive effect? The thing is a cruel joke.

There is no reason that the same cannot happen in the case of the liberation of the untouchables also.

'Deconstructive moves' may have helped one or two gas-bags to get tenure. But their vapid P.C or PoCo jargon paved the way for the backlash which has put Trump in the White House.

Such a phenomenology of untouchability also does something else: it allows us to develop an ethics which is based on touch.

A very wonderful ethics which says that if a guy pokes your eye out, he too suffered a reciprocal outrage by having your eyeball spurt gooey stuff on his finger.

While ethical responses to untouchability often draw upon political ideas such as individual freedom there is a more foundational ethical response possible, one based on an ethics of touch.

No there isn't. 'Ethics of touch' is about respecting other people's boundaries. You may touch yourself but MUST NOT jizz over your students or co-workers or innocent members of the public. By cutting down on the amount of time you spend touching yourself you will neither become a Brahman nor an Untouchable but will certainly be less of a waste of space.