Caste And Hinduism

By Gail Omvedt
Economic and Political Weekly
29 November, 2003
M V Nadkarni's recent article "Is Caste System Intrinsic to Hinduism?:
Demolishing a Myth", (EPW, November 8, 2003) comes as a follow-up to his
earlier article "Ethics and Relevance of Conversions: A Critical
Assessment of Religious and Social Dimensions in a Gandhian Perspective"
(Januay 18). Both articles show the fundamental stamp of Hindutva
ideology, primary of which is shoddy methodology, selective quotation (for
example, his references to my work are to a 10-year old book and
selectively at that), and illogic.
The illogic in the 'Caste System' article begins with a basic, unexamined
premise: that there is some entity called 'Hinduism', a religion which has
lasted 4,000 years and which comprehends 'classical' as well as 'medieval'
and 'modern' forms. This is the most historically unjustified premise,
since the term 'Hindu' to refer to a religious belief was never used until
the establishment of Muslim regimes (and then only in some parts of India;
for instance, Tukaram - who Nadkarni takes as one of the 'Hindu' bhakti
sants, never in all his 4,700 abhangs used this word) and it never came
into generalised use throughout India until the 19th century. This has
been documented by numerous scholars and I will not cite them here. The
illogic is that Nadkarni assumes, and documents, changes in the caste as a
socio-historical structure (which I think is correct) but does not
question the supposedly unchanging character of an essential 'Hinduism'.
(Incidentally, Nadkarni is silent on whether Buddhism, Jainism and the
shramanic traditions should be considered as part of 'Hinduism').
Other mistakes pale before this basic point, but I will take up a few
issues.
First, he says that Ambedkar regards the Purush Sukta as an interpolation.
This is an opinion of many Sanskrit scholars, not only Ambedkar. That
different texts ('religious' or not) contain material from different
periods is a historical inevitability; looking at the text within the
framework of the social and material conditions of its time, determining
its time, is a major part of a scholarís task. The Purush Sukta, to my
knowledge, is taken to be a very late addition (whether we use the term
'interpolation' is a matter of definition) to the rest of the Rig Veda.
The dating of the Rig Veda (by most scholars to 1,500-1,000 BC) itself
does not justify the '4,000 year' claim. I have argued in my own recent
book, Buddhism in India: Challenging Brahmanism and Caste (Sage India,
2003) that caste ('varnashrama dharma') emerged as a concept only in the
middle of the first millennium BCE - not at first as an actual social
structure but as an emerging prescription of what an ideal social
structure should be. For about a millennium there was a battle between the
brahmanic tradition (supporting varnashrama dharma) and the shramanic
traditions, especially Buddhism, over the nature of what society should
be. It is relatively meaningless to use the actual social situation in
this period as justifying what Nadkarni calls 'Hinduism' but what de facto
he takes as only the brahmanic scriptures.
A major problem of interpretation comes up as to whether the Gita's
justification of assigning varna categories is by birth or by 'merit'.
Nadkarni argues for merit as do all modern ideologies of Hindutva, as for
that matter Gandhi did at least at the end of his life. (Gandhi did
support 'swadharma', following the profession of oneís father, for a
lengthy period, but leave that aside). I do not think this is what the
ancient texts meant - but even if they did, the point remains that it is
profoundly undemocratic to assign people, at whatever age, to certain
tasks and responsibilities and rights according to some form of presumed
'merit' or 'guna' and then to treat them differentially. Could any
democratic society legislate that people who are primarily workers should
not be able to read or should not be able to read certain valued religious
texts and that they should be punished if they did so? Could any
democratic society legislate that people who are not primarily (by 'merit'
or not) something called 'brahmans' should be forbidden from teaching or
arguing about such texts? Varna by merit is as abominable a conception as
varna by birth. (Nadkarni does not of course mention women, because here
it is almost impossible to sustain any argument.)
Incidentally, the sections of the Gita that Nadkarni quotes (IV:13, II:31,
XVIII: 47) are not necessarily the most pro-varna, according to my
reading. I would refer to the entire sequence of XVIII: 41-47. Even worse
are the verses in I: 40-47, which state that varnasamkarna (mixture of
varnas) leads to destruction of the family and both lead to hell. It seems
to me that such verses cannot be 'explained away'; one must say whether
one agrees or disagrees with them. Nadkarni would apparently 'disagree'
with such sentiments of the brahmanic 'canon' - but why are there so many
of them and why are they so persistent?
How much of the Gita is left that cannot be found in the Dhammapada, or in
Samkhya philosophy? Why should the Gita be considered a particularly holy
book? And if not the Gita, which are the texts Nadkarni would recommend?
To take up the issue of bhakti as Nadkarni calls 'the most prominent
movement within the framework of Hinduism to fight against casteism'.
Again, we have to be on guard against the tendency to classify all bhakta
sants as within the same system, the same religion, the same framework.
There were orthodox institutionalised sects, many of which controlled a
good deal of money and power - the Vallabhaites in north India, the
Ramdasis in Maharashtra, to take two exmaples. Those whom I have been
calling the radical bhakta sants ñ Kabir, Ravidas, Mira, and in
Maharashtra Tukaram, Cokhamela, Namdev, Dnandev - were quite different.
Kabir clearly differentiated himself from both ëHindusí and 'Muslims'
(whom he usually called 'Turks'); so did Nanak, though Nadkarni does not
apparently consider him a part of 'Hinduism'. Tuka spoke primarily in
terms of Vithoba or Vitthal, but when he used the term 'Vishnudas' or
ëVaishnava virí for the varkaris, he used it in such a way as to include
many Muslims and to exclude pandits, followers of brahmanic rituals, and
advaita philosophy. Numerous abhangs take dharma and karma as referring to
'the others' and not to the varkaris. The fact is that Cokhamela died
young while carrying out his caste duty, which he could not escape; Tukaís
manuscripts were drowned because as a shudra he was not supposed to write or teach, and there is good evidence that in the end he was murdered by
his orthodox opponents.1
The opposition to caste, untouchability, panditry, etc, by the radical
sants cannot be taken as a 'proof' of the progressive and reform qualities
of something called 'Hinduism'. Coming to the 'modern' period, Nadkarni
makes a serious error when he takes ezhavas and nadars as examples of
dalits who have raised their status by reformist policies. Ezhavas (also
known as tiyyas) and nadars were never untouchables in the sense that
pulayas and cherumans in Kerala, or paraiyas and pallars in Tamil Nadu.
They were lower OBCs. And while many among them have benefited by modern changes, it is still apparently true that as social groups, that is, they
remain in the same place in the hierarchy as before - that is, above the
scheduled castes, and below the upper shudras and twice-born categories.
Finally, the point is not whether caste is dying away or not. Certainly it
can survive only with difficulty in a modern democratic age and, as a
historical form that came into existence at a certain time it is also
certain to vanish. At the same time it is clear that forms, or 'remnants'
or whatever Nadkarni or others would like to call them - he prefers terms
such as 'caste identities' and 'ghosts' implying lack of material reality
- remains. What is his position regarding these remnants or surviving
forms? Does he agree or not that programmes of affirmative action are
still needed in the economic sphere? Does he agree or not that the
continuing domination of a hereditary brahman priesthood in most 'Hindu'
temples - and especially in the very lucrative ones - is wrong and should
be abolished? In his January 18 article Nadkarni has justified opposition
to conversion with particular citations from Gandhi. There may be plenty
of reason to argue against conversion. This does not justify any law
banning it or discriminating against people who 'convert' (who choose to
follow a particular religion or a particular sect within a religion). Laws
may ban only those practices which infringe on the rights of others,
otherwise propagation of a religious point of view - just as propagation
of a political point of view - is a fundamental right.
Nadkarni has written that within Islam and Christianity there are
retrogressive as well as progressive and democratic tendencies. This is
true, and I (and most others) would support the democratic tradition
within these religions - and oppose retrogressive ones. I do not consider
'Hinduism' to be a religion in the same sense, but I would certainly
support Nadkarniís right to call himself a religious 'Hindu'. The rest
depends on what kind of stand he takes within what he considers to be
Hinduism: would he support affirmative action or diversity programmes at
all levels? Would he support the removal of hereditary priesthood from
temples? Would he support the right of people to choose which faith to
follow? I await his answer.
Time will submit to slavery
from illusionís bonds we'll be free
everyone will be
powerful and prosperous -
Brahman, Ksatriya, Vaishya, Shudra
and Chandala all have rights
women, children, male and female
and even prostitutes
-Tuka (Tukaram), 17th century Marathi Sant of India
Note
1 See the ongoing translations of Tuka which have been done by Bharat
Patankar and the author; for an early publication see 'Says Tuka .Songs of
a Radical Bhakta', Critical Asian Studies 35, 2, June 2003 (translations
from the Marathi with introduction).


http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-omvedt291103.htm

Hindu Or Sindhu

By Bharat Patankar
Let us remember the brave warriors
and heroes of our country:
The brave Bhairoba, Khandoba, Jotiba
Who were the chieftains of Bali's kingdom,
and the meritorious king Bali
who we recall at the second day of Divali.
Why is it he is the warrior remembered with,
"Let troubles and sorrows go and the kingdom of Bali come"?
The Aryabhats came and looted all, made the warriors into slaves.
Why did Waman send Bali under the earth?
This is the question of Joti, a Mali..

(from Mahatma Phule, Akhands)




Introduction
The politics of "Hindutva' have surged forward tremendously in
the last ten years. "ram" and "Ramjanmabhoomi" have become
the core of this new link being forged between political power
and religion. While the Mullas and other Muslim fundamentalists
are keeping the poor Muslims in bondage, the Sangh parivar is
trying to bring back the old Brahmanic religion.
The Hindutvavadis are the offspring of the capitalists who
exploit workers, agricultural labourers, peasants, women, adivasis,
dahlits, nomads, balutedars and tenants; they are trying to
heighten casteist exploitation by restoring the old brahmanic
religion in a new form. Muslims have been made the direct target
of their bloodthirsty attack, while they spread poison to confuse
bahujans and dalits to trap them anew in a brahmanic religion.
This makes it necessary for poor Muslims and Hindus alike to
rip off the veil of the Sangh parivar.
In this situation we will use the perspective of Phule to find a
way out. We will need the light of the thinking of Dr. Babasaheb
Ambedkar, Gadge Maharaj, the heritage of Carvak, Gautam
Buddha, Mahavir, Basaveshwar and others. It is necessary to
rally around the trumpet of king Bali. There is a need to give a
framework to the ideology of dalit and bahujan men and women,
drawing on researchers like D.D. Kosambi.Jotiba had expressed
the theme that human beings must behave humanely towards
one another. Even while ferociously opposing brahmanic
superstitions whenever showed blind hatred for those born as
brahmans. In his own words,
The Aryas used caseteism to split
the Mlecchas for their own interests,
Aryas were declared superior for all births
and others throughout the world inferior.
They used religious differences for self-interest,
looting the shudras in the name of faith.
There is no such differentiation among Christians or Muslims.
Do not respect religious or political differences,
Behave truthfully for the lord;
keep Christians, Muslims, Mangs just as brahmans as brothers.There is only one truth in the creator's religion;but many quarrels: for what?


With such a perspective we confront the religious fanatics of
the Sangh parivar who aim to re-establish the old brahmanic
religion. Jotiba stated that without annihilating the exploitation
of caste and religious-cultural oppression, the nation or the
"people together" will never come into existence. He brought
forward the role of equality in religions such as Buddhism and
Islam, while saluting dalit and bahujan elements in Hindu
traditions.
Cultural and social traditions along with political and economic
integration play a central role in giving shape to the "people
together" of any nation. But the time has come to analyze
anew the traditions of the majority of people in India. If
Bharatiya people are not to be trapped in the claws of
religious insanity, this search has to be done with a clear
head. With this it will be easy to rip apart the veils of the
Hindutva of the Sangh parivar.


The Oldest Heritage of Bharatiya Society: Hindu or Sindhu?
Those Sanghists who call themselves "Hindutvavadis"
consider only the tradition of brahmanic Hinduism to be
theirs. But there is a difference of earth and sky between
their brahmanic Hindu tradition and the "Hindu" tradition
of the entire people. Even before the concept of "Hindu"
came into existence there was a great tradition of the
Indian community, one that Indians can claim with pride
as theirs. This great tradition is that of Sindhu civilisation.
According to archeological evidence, the Sindhu civilization
is the oldest one on the Indian subcontinent. It was found
not only in the environs of the river Sindhu, but was spread
even up to today's Gujarat. It was an urban civilisation and
had achieved an agricultural-artisan and seafaring mode of
production. It goes back 5000 years, with dating fixed not
only by archeological evidence but also with the help of
radiocarbon technology. Nearly 700 settlements from small
villages to cities have been unearthed so far. The script of
the civilisation, found on its seals, has not been deciphered.
But there is still much to learn from what has been
discovered so far.
The brahmanic Hindutvavadis claim the Vedas as the original
books of the Hindus. The Sindhu civilisation is prior to all
of these Vedas. Contrary to the brahmanic Hindutvavadis,
those who paraded the Vedas as their own came from
outside the Indian subcontinent. They knew nothing of
urban life. They were wandering pastoralists, primitive tribes
who knew nothing of settled agriculture or the art of writing.
These tribes destroyed the cities of the Sindhu civilisation.
They broke up the dams necessary for their agriculture.
The Aryans were the first outsiders known to history who
attacked and looted the Indian people and destroyed their
homes and villages. The Rg Veda is the poetic ballad of the
victories and customs of these marauding barbarians! If,
as the Hindutvavadis say, the Vedas are the original and
sacred books of the Hindu religion, then we will have to
admit that it was the people of the "Hindu" religion who
were the first foreign barbarians to attack the Indian people.
And we will have to say that the "Hindu" religion is not
an Indian religion but a religion of foreign marauders! One
to two thousand years before conquerors of such diverse
religious and ethnic groups as the Greeks, Shakas,
Muslims (Arabs, Turks) or Christians set foot on the
Indian subcontinent, these foreign Aryan barbarians came
to destroy our advanced civilisation. They did not stop at
destroying the places of worship of the Sindhu civilisation
but laid waste whole cities and villages. They also destroyed
the agriculture based on advanced technologies along with
its irrigation system. The Hindutvavadis advise the Indian
people to take as their great religious book that book which
sings the praises of such terrible acts. How will the Indian
poor who have no knowledge of Sanskrit understand what
this means? The Indian people understand the Hindu
religion according to their own language. The people's
Hindu religion and the "Hindu" religion of the Hindutvavadis
are different. The religion that they call theirs is a religion
that has attacked Indian culture and Indian traditions.
Some may ask, where is the proof of all this? There is of
course irrefutable archeological evidence for the existence of
the cities and villages. But there is also proof that Aryan
invaders attacked this civilisation. Evidence is found in the
Rg Veda itself. The Rg Veda god and leader, Indra, is
described as "releaser of floods" and "destroyer of cities."
There is no mention of him or his followers as "builders of
cities" or "conquerors of cities." In this first Veda the
Sanskrit word for brick, ista, is never found. The description
of Aryan settlements in this period is simply as "village"
(gram). Even in the later Vedas it seems that bricks were
used only for building a place for yagnas. The "city-destroying"
Aryans destroyed the cities of the Sindu civilisation. Since
they were nomadic pastoralists, rather than conquering
and living in them they smashed them and continued to
wander. There is a specific mention in the Rg Veda (6.27.5)
of a war attacking and destroying a city called "Hariyupiya"
(Harappa). A pogrom of destroying and looting is clear from
numerous references. Those whose cities were looted were
called "dasyu." This later became the word "das" (defeated
people). The people of the Sindhu civilisation were made
into slaves!
In this connection, some people of the Sindhu civilisation
known as "pani" were mentioned with scorn. The meaning
of the word is "merchant." In destroying the urban
settlements of the Sindhu civilisation, the Aryans also
naturally destroyed their agriculture and crafts and the
trade based on these. Some eight to nine hundred years
after the Sindhu civilisation was destroyed new cities began
to come again into existence. When coins began to be
used again they were known as pana. Even today,
merchants are called vani in Marathi and bania in Hindi.
The Sindhu civilisation was smashed but not completely
uprooted. When settled agriculture and urban civilisation
began to be generalised once again, Indian civilisation
developed on the foundation of the broken remnants of
that civilisation. It could not and did not develop on
the basis of the Vedic verses.
Proof can also be found in the Rg Veda that the Aryans
destroyed the agricultural system of the Sindhu civilisation.
Indra is often called the "liberator of waters." Indra freed
rivers from the clutches of Vrtra. The meaning of vrtra is
obstruction, barricade or bandh. There is also a specific
mention that "he removed the artificial obstruction to
rivers." The method of cultivation of the Sindhu civilisation
depended on this water. Their agriculture flourished on
the floodplains of rivers and on silt deposited by water
spread over the fields. Dams were built to spread this water
over greater distances. This was the best way of irrigating
the land and making it cultivable in the low rainfall areas.
Since two early floods came from the seven rivers originating
in the Himalayas, two good crops every year could be taken
on this basis. The Aryans destroyed this method of
cultivating the land. It was a deathblow to the Sindhu
civilisation.
In brief, the claim of the Hindutvavadis that the Vedas are
the ancient and sacred books of the Indian culture or
alternatively of the Hindu religion proves to be a lie. These
are books that the pastoral, nomadic, barbarian Aryan
tribes created to sing the praises of their victories. They
are the oldest memorials of the destruction of the Indian
culture by "foreigners." It is the Sindhu civilisation which
is the ancient and original culture of the Indian people.
Along with the truth that the Rg Veda-parading Aryans
were the first outside barbarians attacking the Indian
people is another strange truth. Those Sanghist brahmani
Hindutvavadis who call the Muslims outsiders were Aryans
who came from the Muslim-majority regions! This is the
region of central Asia. The region from today's Iran to
Afghanistan and further up to the Sindhu river was known
as "Arya Pradesh" by the world conqueror Alexander. It
is not that these Aryans wandered somewhere else and
Muslims came from outside and encroached on their land.
These onetime Aryans became Muslims and became
among the many groups from outside who became
Muslims and then came into India. (Though most of
today's Indian Muslims come from the nonAryan Dravidian
and other groups). Yet those who claim the tradition of
that Aryan religion call the Muslim Aryans as "outside
invaders" and vow to eradicate them!
The region of today's Iran was previously known as Persia
(about 486 BC). The ruler of Persia at that time, Darius,
was the first to have engravings on his tomb, in which
he said, "Persian, the son of a Persian, Arya, the son of
an Arya"! Isn't it an irony that those Sanghists who claim
the heritage of the Aryans who were the first to attack the
Indian people and culture consider the original Aryas
who did not participate in the attack as alien?


The Hindu Religion of the People and the Religion of the
Hindutvavadis
The English pronounced Mumbai as "Bombay" and this
is the way Indians write the name of the city even today.
Similarly, the people who came over the Khyber Pass
and crossed the Sindhu river in the Indian subcontinent
pronounced the Sindhu as "Indus" or "Hindu" and based
on this distorted foreign pronunciation the Bharatiyas
came to be known as "Indian" or "Hindu." And then all
of us living on the banks of the Ganga, Yamuna, Narmada,
Godavari, Krishna, Kaveri etc. began to be known by the
name of "Hindus" or "Hindustanis." More accurately we
should be called "Sindhus" or "Sindhustanis."
The majority of people of India are of the Hindu (Sindhu)
religion of the Baliraja tradition, while the religion of those
who call themselves Hindutvavadis is of the Vaman
tradition. In this context a custom known in every home
in Maharashtra and brought to our attention by Mahatma
Jotiba Phule is worth noting. It is a tradition that the
women of the house felicitate the men coming home from
"taking the gold of Dussera" with ida pida javo, balica rajya
yevo, "let sorrows and troubles go and the kingdom of Bali
come." Only in the homes of those who observe the
brahmanic customs is there the humiliating custom of
breaking the statue of Bali to felicitate the entry of men.
Folk legends describe Bali Raja as a beneficent ruler
behaving well with the people, a hero struggling to give a
life of equality and prosperity. In contrast, without any
errors of this king, without any tyrannous actions he is called
a "rakshasa" and the so-called avatar of Vishnu comes
forward as "Vaman" to deceive and destroy him. This is
appropriate to the Hindutvavadis who praise the destroying
of the Babri Masjid. (It is important to remember here that
the people of the Sindhu civilisation were also described as
rakshasas in the Rg Veda).
The majority of the Indian people observe the Hindu (Sindhu)
religious tradition of Bali Raja, while those who call
themselves Hindutvavadis observe the Hindu religion of Waman!
The majority Indian people of the Hindu (Sindhu) tradition
have very many close and important devatas. Examples of
these in Maharashtra are such gods as Jotiba, Vithoba,
Khandoba etc. and goddesses such as Kalubai, Banaik,
Jokai, Ambabai. There is not a mention of these in the
religious books that the Hindutvavadis take as the main
religious books of the Hindus. The devatas followed by the
majority of Hindus (Sindhus) do not have brahman priests
and have only an insignificant place in the religious books
of the Hindutvavadis. The main festivals of the majority,
ghatastapana, Dassera, Nagpanchmi, Bendu or Bailpola,
Rangpanchmi, Holi etc. are also not in the religious books
of the Hindutvavadis. The original devata of Maharashtrian
culture, Vithoba, is also absent from their religious books!
All these festivals and devatas are linked to the laborious
but creative agricultural life and livelihood of the majority
of Indian people. They have originated from that life. This
bahujan religion has an extremely close relation to the
matricentric agricultural tradition of the Sindhu civilisation.
There is nothing of this in the Hindutvavadis religious books.
Whatever there is represents a snatching away of the
independence of the bahujan Indians. It is a way of keeping
them in slavery. These books have proclaimed a religion
that closes off all women and over 95% of men from
knowledge. They have given instructions to treat women
as animals. With the proclamation that toiling people
should be given the lowest status, that some among them
should be made untouchables and treated worse than
animals, they have divided them and locked them into the
hierarchy of the caste system. Such religious books
cannot represent the Hindu (Sindhu) religion of the majority
of Indians. The Brahmanic religion, which makes the
majority of people and all women into slaves and keeps
them in the night of ignorance, can only be beneficial to
the Hindutvavadis. In the rhetoric of making India a
"Hindu nation" the intention seems to be to implement
such a religion once again. If it is not, they should clearly
renounce all such religious books. They should publicly
criticise the teachings in them. Not only this, they should
condemn the actions in the Ramayana of killing Shambuk
for the crime (!) of tapascharya. They should condemn
the injustice meted out to Sita. They should agree that
only Sita and Shambuk could be models for the majority
of Indian people.
The majority of Indian people have followed another
"religious" practice. They have gone on discussing and
criticising whatever they considered to be errors in the
mythologies. For example, the ovya sung by "ignorant"
women at work in our villages are critical of the behavior
of Rama to Sita.
The people have regarded all the religions born out of the
Indian tradition as theirs. Buddhism, Jainism, Veerasaivism,
Sikhism were never regarded as alien. The reason is clear.
These religions all opposed the caste system. They opposed
varna. Buddhism in fact waged a struggle against regarding
the majority of people as slaves. The reason for the spread
of Buddhism in India up to the time of Emperor Ashok
was that the slave system was overcome and the toiling
people remained comparatively freer as independent
peasants and paid laborers. The Buddhist symbol of this
emperor Ashok is today on our national flag. The
Brahmanic Hindutvavadis of the Sangh parivar have
started to oppose this symbol! The empire of Ashok, who
accepted Buddhist religion, extended over all of India.
His symbol was in reality the symbol of the liberation
of the majority of Indian toiling people from the slavery
of the das system of the old brahmanic religion. The
Sangh parivar does not want the symbol of the first
stage of our liberation. They want to impose again
another casteist slavery upon us along with capitalism.
In the very period in which the bahujans and dalits of old
days were becoming free from the das system of slavery,
the symptoms of the creation of the jati system could be
seen. In this context Gautam Buddha has clearly said,
"Only among nonhuman animals do differences such as
jati exist, not among humans."
Buddha opposed the jati system at the time of its origin.
This was the reason he was attacked. Thousands were
killed and their blood was spilled. This terrible action was
done by the brahmanic religion, which is hailed today by
the Sangh parivar. In every footpath in India and especially
in Maharashtra there are relics which prove we were
Buddhists. Caves in the hills at Ajanta-Ellora, Karle,
Bhaje, Karad; hills at Naneghat, Nashik, the hill where
Tukaram sang his abhangs are among these. Our
ancestors built these with their own hands. Those who
established the first state in Maharashtra and Andhra
also, the Satavahanas, supported both Buddhism and
the Hindu (Sindhu) religion. Our Khandoba of Jejuri
was one such Satavahana. The Sangh family is playing
a game to once again catch the necks of the bahujans
and dalits in their brahmanic noose. They are giving an
invitation to turn away from the liberatory tradition and
become a slave again accepting the bloodthirsty tradition.
The remedy to this is to tear apart the veil over their
plotting.
The Sikh and Lingayat religions came forward to achieve
liberation from the caste system and defeat the brahmanic
religion. It is no accident that the abhangs of Namdev of
the bhakti tradition which opposed caste are in the "Guru
Granthsaheb" of the Sikhs. The Lingayat religion founded
by Basaveshwar also aimed at this liberation. It was cause
of this that brahmans were enraged and murderously
attacked him.
In the abhangs of Tukaram Maharaj of the Varkari religion
of Maharashtra the oppostion to brahmanic religion is
clear. Not only this, but a sympathy is expressed for
Islam. Tukaram and Kunbis like him were forbidden to
learn Sanskrit; he made his own songs and created his
own "Veda." The bhakti tradition attacked brahmanism.
This is why he was tortured by the brahmans of the time
and killed. The Sangh parivar is once again following this
murderous tradition.
Not only this, but people following religions that were
founded outside the Indian subcontinent were never
seen as foreigners or outsiders by the people of Hindu
(Sindhu) religion. In the villages of Maharashtra,
Moharram has been observed as a festival of all people
for generations. In some places the Moharram tabut
does not even go out without Hindus (Sindhus) doing
"puja." The people of Hindu (Sindhu) religion make vows
to pirs while Muslims observe the fast days of Hindu
(Sindhu) clan devatas and make vows to them. Behaving
humanely to one another is the religion of the Hindu
(Sindhu) tradition. Enslaving human beings, using power
to kill people in order to establish domination, is the
religion of the Vaman tradition of the Hindutvavadis.
The looting kings whose spirituality was only in
exploitation were the ones who took up the business of
destroying the places of worship of one or anther
religion. It was not the people. In the 7th century AD
king Shashanka destroyed Buddhist memorials and
burned to the ground the tree under which the Buddha
had found enlightenment. In that period only King
Harsha honoured both Hindu and Buddhist religions.
The most noteworthy event is that a Kashmir raja
named Harsha in the 11th-12th century, known for his
Sanskrit poetry, confiscated the property of temples,
threw out their idols and melted down important coinage.
This "Hindu" king appointed a special minister known as
devotpatannayak for such work!
The majority of Hindu (Sindhu) people remained apart
form such politics of destruction. And if the question
comes of retribution for such politics, then a new
industry will have to be started in the country. The
first retribution will have to be from those who
destroyed the cities, places of worship and agriculture
of the Sindhu civilisation. And by the logic of justice
used by the Sangh parivar, retribution is owed by all
those Brahmans (whether or not their descendents
are criminals) who kept all women and nonBrahman
men as slaves for two thousand years, locking them
up in the exploitation of the caste hierarchy, depriving
them of knowledge. That town whose original name
of Saket was wiped out in the fifth century and called
"Ayodhya" will have to be given again the name of
Saket. The temple of Ram will have to be condemned
and the temples of Sita and the martyred ancestor of
the bahujans, Shambuk, built in its place.
However, though such politics is part of the Vaman
tradition of the Hindutvavadis, the majority of Indian
people of the Hindu (Sindhu) tradition, the heirs of Bali
Raja and Shambuk, will not do such politics. But in
order that the Hindutvavadis should recognise the
consequence of their politics and stop their activities,
there is a need to remind them of the traditions of Hindu
culture.


Ram, BJP and Power
When Advani led the "Ramrath Yatra," BJP's equation of
Ram and power became clear. Nor did the BJP hide their
aims. The organisers of the Rath Yatra did not forget to
paint the lotus electoral symbol of the BJP on the "chariot."
Today the BJP has no alternative to the Congress for solving
the problems faced by the country. They can give no
alternative path for ending the sorrows faced by toilers in
villages and cities. They have not an inkling of a practical
and concrete remedy for the terrible diseases of poverty,
starvation, unemployment, indebtedness price-rise,
pollution, drought and desertification. They want to keep
the exploitative statist system as it is and only give it the
form of Hindutva. With no alternative path to gain
government power, they have chosen the path of
Ramjanmabhoomi.
They want political power to bury Bali Raja again in the
earth. They want to exclude Shambuk from attempting
tapascharya and to close the path of knowledge for
women. They want to bring back the raj modeled on a
religion which makes a guiltless Sita abandoned. They
want to bring back the system of Manu which throws
women into slavery. They want to bring back
chaturvarnya in a new, subtle form. By limiting education
they want to re-establish the old system on which was
based the saying, "Knowledge in the house of the
Brahmans, grain in the house of the Kunbis (peasants),
and songs for the Mahars and Mangs (dalits)."
In the context of the situation today the Sangh family
and Muslim fundamentalist mullahs and Imam Bukhari
are of one coin. In the Shahbano case the Supreme Court
ruled on the side of giving maintenance. The Muslim
fundamentalists raised a huge outcry. The Congress
government which was doing opportunistic "vote bank"
politics overturned the Supreme Court decision by
amending the Constitution! The Sangh family is yelling
that this shows how Muslims are pampered. But it was a
huge injustice to Muslim women. It was the fundamentalists
who were pampered. To say that taking away the rights
of women is the "pampering of Muslims" is to say that
pampering is equivalent to withholding the
maintenance to abandoned women. The Sangh parivar
feels this is pampering, since they also want to take away
the rights of women. The Muslim fundamentalists are
playing the cruel game of taking advantage of the sorrows
of the extremely poor Muslim masses to keep them in
their clutches. Though there is no caste system in Islam
still there is some caste among Indian Muslims. Both sides
are bloodsuckers.
In the ancient matricentric equalitarian tribal society there
was no exploitation of either men or women. The
brahmanical religious tradition and the looting exploitative
kings first imposed slavery on women, and then as the
next step on the majority of toiling men. In the Mahabharat
there is a memory of nearly this society:
"Neither kingdoms nor kings nor punishment norpunished: through the religion of humanity (dharma) theyprotect each other."
Here the Sanskrit word "dharma' means the rules guiding
human behavior. Such a dream was reflected in the very
organization of the Buddhist Sangha. The workers and
toilers of all religions and all castes in India want such a
society founded on the prosperity of science, "where there
is no kingdom, no king, no punishment or punished and
the citizens themselves protect each other through the laws
of humanity."
If we want to keep alive the old traditions and old heritage,
then the defeated tradition of the tribal mother has to be
recalled. The model of Sita, whose name means ploughed
land and who struggled against the imposition of slavery
on the four varnas and on women, has to be brought forward.
In the Ramayana, Rama kills Tataka, the queen of the
Malad-Kurush matricentric tribe. Vishwamitra tells Rama,
who hesitates in the decision to kill Tataka, that
"Na hi te strivadhkrut ghruna karya narottam,
Chaturvarnya hitah hi kartavya rajsununa"
("O Purushottam! It is not proper to feel squeamish about
killing a woman. A raja's duty is to struggle for the
advancement of chaturvarnya" (cited in Sharad Patil, Das
Shudra Gulamgiri, 1986, p. 2).
This is the teaching that aims to establish the four varna
system and make all toiling men and women into slaves
through the defeat of the equalitarian matricentric tribal
state. Here we have to note that Vishwamitra does not tell
Rama that "since Tataka is a rakshasa, she is bad,
therefore you should kill her."
In contrast, Sita says to Rama in the Ramayana,
"To commit violence against other lives who are not your
enemies is a third addiction which you have gotten into.
Because, O hero! You have taken a vow to kill rakshasas in
a war for the security of the rishis living in Dankaranya.People
will not approve of the killing of guiltless rakshasas."
Ram answers,
"O daughter of Janak! I have vowed to observe all the
orders of the rishis of Dandakaranya. I have always desired
truth. O Sita! I will sacrifice Lakshman, my life or even you,
but I will not renounce the vows that were given and especially
the promises given to Brahmans.." (cited Patil, p. 18).
In the name of Hindutva and Ramjanmabhoomi, the RSS
and BJP are today attacking Muslims. Their final attack will
be on the majority of Indians of Hindu (Sindhu) religion in
order to tighten the slavery of women, in order to increase
the exploitation of the old varna-based jati system.
But we have confidence that the majority of the Indian
people who are of Hindu (Sindhu) religion of the tradition
of Bali Raja will understand this conspiracy of the heirs of
Waman. For they are the true heirs of Sita and Shambuk.


"Time will submit to slavery
from illusion's bonds we'll be free
everyone will be powerful and prosperous --
Brahman, Ksatriya, Vaishya, Shudra and Chandala all have rights
women, children, male and female and even prostitutes"
--Tuka (Tukaram), 17th cent. Marathi Sant of India


(Translated from Marathi, this article was originally written in 1993 as a Marathi pamphlet selling at one rupee, this sold out 10,000 copies within a first few days, mainly when the Shetmajur Kashtakari Shetkari Sanghatana (an organization of toiling farmers' and agricultural labourers) held a protest march of 20,000 rural people coming to Kolhapur in southern Maharashtra).

http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-patankar021103.htm

Dynastic succession has now infected mutts: Nidumamidi

Davangere, April 26, DHNS

Dynastic succession, so far limited to rulers and politicians was now infecting religious institutions, with mutt heads appointing their illegitimate children as their successors, head of Nidumamidi mutt Veerabhadra Chennamalla Swami has said.

The searing indictment of mutt heads by a pontiff known for his progressive views came at an event organised to celebrate the 120th birth anniversary of B R Ambedkar. Addressing the function organised by the Bescom SC/ST Employees’ Welfare Society, Chennamalla Swami said the love for one’s biological children to the exclusion of others, a disease limited to politicians so far, had now spread to mutts. “In most mutts, the illegitimate offsprings of pontiffs are appointed as successors to ensure control and ownership of assets, wealth and power,” Chennamalla Swami said. “Dynastic succession is a major evil threatening the nation. When privilege by birth was institutionalised, the nation becomes stagnant and status quoist, and the caste system is entrenched,” the seer said. “Reformers such as Basava, Vivekananda and Ambedkar are just icons today and the ideals propagated by them are not practiced. If Dalits become economically empowered, they build temples where Brahmins are priests,” the Swami observed. “Some of the worst criminals of the day are Brahmins and Jangamas,” Chennamalla Swami said, debunking superiority of caste. s “If a Brahmin is by definition a man of knowledge and noble living, how many Shoodras who meet that criteria are accepted as Brahmins by Brahmins,” Chennamalla Swami wanted to know. The Shoodras have created the cultural wealth of the country, the seer said, and urged them not to fall at the feet of religious heads. “You have the responsibility of taking society on the path of equality. Do not touch the feet of sadhus and sanyasis. That is a sign of the Vedic tradition of surrender. Do not surrender. Bowing, a tradition of civility, is enough,” the seer said.

The Untouchables

by Andrea Hampton 

 In traditional India, there is a structured caste system. The members of the lowest caste are called the untouchables. These untouchables live a life of poverty, are discriminated against, and are outsiders in their own home land. In the caste system there is four varnas: the Brahmans, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, and the Shudras. The untouchables were not even included in the varnas which is the different groups of the caste, instead the untouchables were avarna or out castes. A person is born into their caste which means that what ever caste a persons parents are in is the caste that they are in. As Milton Singer and Bernard Cohn explain in their book, Structure and Change in Indian Society, "In India when parents belong to the same caste, children almost invariably bilaterally inherit their caste affiliation (1968:60). They are called the untouchables because if a member of another caste touches one of them they will become polluted. As Santokh Singh Anant explains, "The word ‘untouchable’ refers to the practice of avoidance of contact with them by other caste (1972:22). The untouchables had the lowest status possible and were discriminated against by all other caste. Living at the bottom of the hierarchy, "The ‘untouchable’ in India was not only low in occupational and other privileges, but was considered unclean in the eyes of the intermediate and higher caste...(Anant 1972:22) They could not change their status. They were stuck in a life of poverty.

Purity and impurity was an important concept in India, and the untouchables were considered to be polluted. "In Hindu ideology, ritual purity or impurity constitutes the criterion generally accepted for justifying and explaining a caste’s rank," the father down the hierarchy one is the more impure they are (Cohn and Singer 1968:55). The Brahmans at the top of the caste were considered pure. However, they could be polluted if they were to come into contact with an untouchable or if they were to accept food or gifts from them. As Christoph Von Furer-Haimendorf explains, "They may not enter any part of a touchable’s house and no person of clean caste will accept any type of cooked food or even water from the hand of an untouchable" (1966:22). The untouchables were not even allowed to eat in the same room as someone of another caste because they would pollute that persons food, "The higher castes consider even the physical contact of an ‘untouchable’ with their food as polluting" (Anant 1972:73). It was as if they were infected with a highly contagious disease. If a member of a high caste does come into contact with a member of the untouchable class they would do everything possible to remove that pollution from them. For example, "Traditionally, if a caste Hindu would come into physical contact with an untouchable, he would consider himself polluted and would take a bath and sometimes even wash his clothes to remove pollution" (Anant 1972: 66) Other castes did their best to stay away from the untouchables.

In some cases the untouchables could face criminal charges if they pollute certain things with their presence. For example, "It was a criminal offense for a member of an excluded caste knowingly to pollute a temple by his presence" (Cohn and Singer 1968: 304). A member of a high caste can also be punished for doing certain things with the untouchables. For example, "Sexual intercourse and interdining with an untouchable are among the gravest offenses which a member of a clean caste can commit and excommunication is the automatic consequence" (Furer-haimendorf 1966:22). So the lower caste did most things amongst themselves. The lower caste could accept gifts from the higher caste because those gifts were considered pure. They could even eat the left overs and scraps of food from a higher caste and this was considered good for them. As Anant has pointed out, "The lower castes would accept food from the higher castes, but it was like a servant accepting food from a master" (1972: 75). In most cases the untouchables and the other caste obeyed these traditions and when they did not they either were punished by law or ostracized by the community.

The occupations that were open to the untouchables were the worst positions available. It was common for them to have jobs that included dealing with human and animal waste and dead carcasses. Since they were already considered polluted they could not become more polluted by dealing with these things. If a higher caste member dealt with these things then they would become polluted. As Martin A. Klein points out, "Scavengers, leather workers, and those who handled the dead were considered extremely polluting, and people who followed these occupations were untouchables" (1993: 113). A leather worker was considered polluting because they had to clean the hide of a dead cow and anything dead was polluting. They were stuck with these jobs, unable to move up, and they were, "... forbidden to do work of higher status or to own land" (Klein 1993:113). The occupations they had were the occupations that their parents had. They were born into these jobs.

There was no mobility offered to the untouchables. They could not change to another caste for they were to remain forever an untouchable. They had no hope for upward movement for, "Mobility was in theory and almost certainly in practice severely limited for the untouchables" (Klein1993: 113). For the most part people married with in their caste so they stayed in their caste and their children would be in the same caste. There were some instances where people would marry outside their caste or have children with some one in another caste. In these instances the people involved were punished by those of their caste and of other castes. In the case of intercaste marriages they were not seen as a marriage at all. In other words they were regarded as, "...men and women of different castes who simply lived together, not as married couples. Indeed, it would have been impossible for these partners to have obtained either priests or guests for a wedding ceremony, and they were not sufficiently sophisticated or motivated to think in terms of a civil marriage" (Cohn and Singer 1968: 60). It was not accepted among society that two people from different caste be married. They could expect to be shunned by society. They could however move down to untouchabilty and legally marry. As Singer and Cohn have pointed out, "If the girl flagrantly lived with an Untouchable she would be boycotted (socially isolated) by members of her own caste but could join the Untouchable caste and legally marry" (Cohn and Singer1968: 62). However, if you are in a higher caste there is not much of a desire to move down but in some cases it does happen. For the most part people only married others from their same caste.

In cases were two people from different castes had children they were also shunned by society and the children were not accepted into their parents caste. There were some options open for a child of an intercaste relationship, "Provided the parents were permitted to remain in the village, the child of a prohibited intercaste alliance in India could (1) emigrate from the area, (2) remain in the region where his ancestry was known but join an Untouchable caste, or (3) remain in the region and become a truely marginal man- an individual without caste affiliation" (Cohn and Singer 1968: 60). The child along with the parents are punished for this act.

In other instances, some people from lower caste tried to pass as people from another caste by moving to a new area where no one knows them. As Klein writes, "...One could not escape from one’s caste except by renouncing the world or by managing to deceive it: for instance, one might migrate and pass oneself off as a member of a higher caste" (1993:114). However, this was risky, and one would have to give up a lot. For example, trying to pass as another caste means, "breaking ties with kin and kith, but it would mean doing so in a society where social support from kinsmen and fellow castemen is customary, and where new intimate social relations with neighbors and associates who are not also fellow castemen are more difficult for adults to form..." (Cohn and Singer 1968: 72). This is a high price to pay because it means that they must give up their close relationships with family and fellow caste members in which they depend upon a great deal. It is more common for an untouchable to try and hide their caste affiliation rather than try and pass for another. As Singer and Cohn point out, "Untouchables who move into the white collar sector of the urban Indian society are more likely to try to hide their caste identity, to attempt to treat the question as if it were irrelevant, than to claim a false caste affiliation" (1968: 71). Though some people of the untouchable caste do sometimes try and pass as a different caste it does not happen often. The risks of being found and losing the close ties with their caste are too high.

The untouchables face a life style of poverty and being discriminated against. They were not allowed to go to many places that other caste could go to, or to dress the same as them. As Anant explains, "Until recently, they were not allowed to draw water from the common well of the village, nor were they entitled to enter the temples" (1972: 22). In some areas of India they were forced to wear certain clothes. For example they were, "...forced to go almost naked, for fear that the others may be touched by the billowing of their clothes. These and scores of other disabilities forced the untouchables into practically inhuman conditions" (Anant 1972: 22). In some cases it was like they were not even considered to be human but more like a dog with rabies. Along with being discriminated against they were also segregated. For example, "They lived in separate hamlets, drank from separate wells, had to dress meanly and behave humbly, and were denied education. These prohibitions were zealously enforces by the upper castes, the community, and the ruler" (Klein 1993: 113). The rest of society was against the Untouchable caste and showed them disrespect. For example, "...a member of an Untouchable caste must be treated by members of all other castes as untouchable simply because of his caste affiliation. Ego, a member of any Shudra or Brahman caste, expects and can demand that any Untouchable show him difference, even though ego is poor, illiterate, and unmarried, and the Untouchable is older, married, educated, and financially successful (Cohn and Singer 1968: 56). It does not matter how successful one might be with in their caste, if someone is of a higher caste they will still look down on that person and treat them as someone beneath them. For the most part the Untouchables accepted their position and lived by the rules that were set before them. As F.G. Baily states, "The untouchable in the traditional system accepts his disabilities" (1960: 191). They lived the life that the other caste forced them too, even though it was an undesirable life of poverty and discrimination.

The Untouchable caste in India were considered outcast in their own society, forced to take the worst jobs available. They were considered to be polluted and therefor all other caste avoided contact with them. They had no opportunities to move up in society. They were stuck being an untouchable for the rest of their life, many living in poverty. They were treated as if they were inferior to those lucky enough to be born into a higher class status.

Dr.B.R. Ambedkar talks about M.K. Gandhi