when the judge in the bhanwari devi case said, 'how can upper caste individuals touch a lower caste woman'.. or when the kerala judge said a brahmin 'should always be at helm of affairs'.. or the many occasions on which judge katju badam speaks bigotry in so many forms..

one needs to pay attention to what babasaheb said about government and society: that the latter's tyranny can be much more oppressive than the former's.. but with these judges, the government's and society's tyranny seems to have become so immersed in each other.. why is that so?

wire-shire, playing up to certain bahujan emotions, wants us to thank the british for giving us 'liberal' laws.. but let's not forget, it was the growth of liberal laws that made racism into such a widespread ideological/material practice in the west,

making it a constituent element of state power.. anyway, the above-mentioned judges, even though presiding at the helm of 'modern' british given institutions, aren't practising modern forms of governmentality, or dividing society into new birth based groups

(like the liberal laws did in the west).. they're bluntly stating that caste is also 'modern', 'scientific' and 'rational'. or that society's new clothes are immaterial, the janeu inside is the real thing..

governmentality, biopower etc are ideas that may help you to understand the welfare states of western europe somewhat.. french etc. 20th century. but it's clear that followers of foucault in india are more confused than focucault himself.