Apartheid in the name of Hinduism

“It is better to explore and accept history rather than to repress and deny it”-Edward W Said- Culture and Imperialism.

In

 South Africa, when the minority Whites wanted to enslave the majority Blacks and deny equal rights to them,  the weapon chosen by them for this purpose was the “colour” of the skin. But, in India,  when an  authoritarian minority  chose to subjugate and enslave the majority the weapon chosen by it for that nefarious purpose was “religion”. It is possible to perpetrate any wicked practice with immunity and impunity, if it is done in the name of  religion, the  authoritarian minority had diagnosed. Nowhere in the world can one witness the strange phenomenon of a people grouped together in one single religion in which a microscopic denomination or section could arrogate to itself a superior status by virtue(?) of birth of the members of the particular denomination. No wonder, ‘Hinduism’ has correctly been described as a religion in which “the people accept the superiority of the Brahmins by birth”.

 It is said that man cannot  and does not do any harm to others while he is sleeping. But, the Brahmin, by wearing the cross-thread even while he is asleep, declares to the world, in all arrogance,  that he considers the others Sudhras. He wears it all day and night and calls it a religious activity.

 Till date the Brahmins  have not explained why they cling on to the practice of wearing of the cross-thread and thereby proclaim to the world that there exist in India even in the twenty-first century the four ‘varna’ categories of people and although the people in the other three ‘Varna’s may try to obliterate the stigma attached to them by coming out of the compartmentalized caste web, the Brahmins would keep on reminding both themselves and the others that even if  the caste system goes the parent Varna system would not be allowed to vanish into thin air and that they  would continue to hold  aloft and perpetuate the varna system and thereby insult the others that they belong to an in-born inferior  strata in this system.

The tradition of subjugation continues till date. Sankaracharya of Kanchipuram says, "We must, at least now, strive hard, wherever possible and to whatever extent, to resurrect the old system, without leaving it stating that it is not possible. Gandhi may not have that much confidence in it. But, as far as I am concerned, I am not prepared for it. This caste structure must definitely be created once again"  "சாத்தியமில்லை என்று விட்டுவிடாமல், இப்போதாவது எங்கே எவ்வளவு முடிகிறதோ அங்கெல்லாம் முடியும் அளவுக்கு பழைய வழிக்குத் திருப்பத்தான் பாடுபடவேண்டும். காந்திக்கு இதிலே நம்பிக்கை குறைந்துபோயிருக்கலாம். ஆனால், என்னைப்பொறுத்தவரையில், நான் அதற்குத் தயாராக் இல்லை. மறுபடியும் இந்தச் சாதி ஏற்பாட்டை உண்டாக்கத்தான் வேணும்". -(Sankaracharya of Kanchipuram- Deivaththin Kural - Vol. 3 - Page 876).

"இந்த லோகம் ஏன் பாவத்தை அதிகமாக அடைந்துவிட்டது என்றால் குலதர்மத்திலிருந்து நாம் நகர்ந்துவிட்டதுதான் காரணம்”, “This world has become a more sinful place only because we have moved away from hereditary professions”, says Sankaracharya Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi of Kanchi. He is so obsessed with the Chathurvanaa system that he says, "While, in those days, the king was proud of protecting and promoting the varna dharma, now a days, the basic premise of the social and political life is to have the casteless society… I am not prepared to accept, in the least, the argument of those who say that the division itself is wrong and the rituals connected with that is also different for different groups. One must realise with wisdom that what is wrong is only the present set-up in which people do not follow their hereditory professions." தொழில் பாகுபாடும் ஆச்சாரங்களை அவாளவால் பின்பற்றுவதும் மாறி, இப்போதுள்ள நிலைமை ஏற்பட்டதுதான் தப்பு என்று விவேகத்தோடு புரிந்துகொள்ளவேண்டும்”  "How can one find fault with the system that has given exclusive and elevated status to the Brahmins that they alone are fit to study Vedas? How come, everyone can study Vedas? Are all equals?" “வேதம் படிக்க இவன்தான் லாயக்கு என்று பிராமணனை ஒதுக்கி உயர்த்தி வைத்திருப்பதை எப்படி தவறு என்று கூறமுடியும்? எல்லோரும் வேதம் படித்தால் எப்படி? எல்லோரும் சமமா?" (Sankaracharya of Kanchipuram-Deivaththin kural - Part III - Page 876).

With this kind of people being venerated by the Braminical oligarchy, the other three subjugated varnas in the Hindu fold must remain alert. 

During the All India Brahmins Federation’s.conference held on 25.6.2000 at Chennai,  it was demanded that the Centre and the States should take action against those who denigrate the religious feelings and the ‘customs’ of the Brahmin community in magazines, stages, and cinemas. But, what about their ‘custom’ of denigrating the others day in day out, by tom-tomming, with their cross-thread,  the “social” inferiority of the others by birth? No answers. It is not their concern. Rather it is their birthright to denigrate the others and it is the birthduty of the others not even to raise any questions about it. After all, the Aryans had held the non-Aryans only to be sub-humans. And that also happened to be their ‘Custom’. There is even Vedic sanction for them to hold such an opinion.

Haven’t they recorded thus in the Rig Veda?

                                  

                                         "We are surrounded on all sides by the Dasyus; 

                                          They do not perform sacrifices

                                          They are unbelievers

                                          Their practices are all different

                                          They are not men!

                                          O! Destroyer of Foes!

                                          Kill them, destroy the Dasa race.”

                                                                 -Rig Veda  I . –1008.

  ‘When the others are not men, as per the ‘great’ Rig(ged) Veda itself, why not they be denigrated?- That is their logic.

The ‘Shudras’ are in slumber, still

The very vehemence with which the Brahmins oppose reservations for the non-Brahmins in the services is indicative of the fact that the interests of the Brahmins are totally against those of the non-Brahmins. The country will be deemed to have attained  real independence only if the Brahmins come forward on their own, to renounce (1) the cross-thread and (2) all the attendant benefits they derive just because of that. They can call the other Hindus as co-religionists only if the distinction between the Brahmins and non-Brahmins ceases.

“The caste system has not only taught the masses to accept the supremacy of the Brahmins but also conditioned  their thinking  to accept their servility with humility”-A.N.Roy, a former MP from Dhanbad,  in his article in the Indian Express on 8.7.85.Pity, indeed. In a street with many houses, if a board is displayed in a  house declaring that ‘the woman in the house concerned is virtuous and moral’, it would certainly imply that the women in the other houses are considered by that house-holder to be otherwise. Likewise, the way the upper-class people identify and declare themselves to be “Brahmins” (by drawing authority from the Vedas for usage of that terminology) proves that they do consider the others to be Kshatrias, Vaisyas or Shudras. That they identify themselves to be “Brahmins” and not as “Iyengars” or “Iyers” proves that they are careful enough to trace their  identity and status only to the Chaturvarna system and not  to the later-day caste system. They hold on to the original, the basics. They do not allow the caste system among them to divide them, unlike the Dravidians who allowed both the Varna system and the caste system to divide them. [But law differs from the Chaturvana system and does not recognise the terms Vaishya or Kshatriaya but only the terms Brahmin and Shudra]. The wearing of the cross thread is not only an open declaration of their thinking on these lines but also an arrogant exhibition and visible representation of the belief thus held by them that the others are Shudras.

You cannot ape

Whenever it is convenient the “Brahmin” says that his wearing  of the cross- thread is a religious ritual. But he does, in fact,  ostracize, thereby, socially all the other people bracketed within his religion  and establish his supremacy by birth within the so-called Hindu religion. There is no use for the others wearing the cross-thread  a la Brahmins. They cannot acquire the same status as that of the Brahmins, the Brahmin says. They should have been born in the twice-born class [which condition they cannot satisfy in this birth]. Otherwise, they wont get the attendant benefits of wearing the cross-thread.

“One example may be cited here. Thirumalai Naik had to adjudicate a dispute between  some Brahmins and a group of people called ‘Pattu Nool Chettiars’ who had migrated into Madurai from Saurashtra, for weaving silk cloth for supplying the royal needs. The Saurashtra weavers claimed that they were Brahmins. But the local Brahmins disputed it. After hearing the Vedic pundits elaborately as to the law on the point, the king decided that though the Saurashrians were Brahmins and could even wear the holy threads, they were not entitled to perform religious rites as the original Brahmins do, such as officiating at marriage, etc.,”(Page16 – According to law we are still Shudras-But how?- P.R.Kuppuswamy – Emerald Publishers).The Brahmins were satisfied.   

This incident would prove that the Brahmins attach importance only to the material benefits they derive because of their status as Brahmins and not to the formality of wearing the cross-thread to serve any religious or sacred purpose. They are more concerned with the temporal areas they had reserved for themselves and are afraid of elevating others to  their status as the ‘others’ may also demand a share in the pie.

Slavery has been introduced in Hinduism only in order to sub serve certain vested interests perpetually. The Whites did not  practice  “untouchability” against the Blacks enslaved by them. In Islam there is scope for a slave to attain equal social status with that of his master. “A favourite slave often received the hand of his master’s daughter in marriage; and Muhammad Ghori, when a courier condoled with him on having no son, is said to have replied that in his Turkish slaves he had thousands of sons, who would succeed him and carry on his name”- Page 166-Sir Woleseley Haig- Cambridge Shorter History of India.-Page 86-History of Medieval India –V D Mahajan. But, in the Hindu society,  one is a slave by birth and is an untouchable until death. He cannot be elevated in social status at all. Marriage with the daughter of his master or  succession  to the throne of the master is simply unthinkable in the Hindu ‘history’

A sinister silence

The Constitution of India recognizes the existence of (1)social, (2)educational and (3)economic inequality in Art.15, 16 and 25.Economic inequality can be remedied just by giving money; educational inequality can be set right by providing education for a certain period; but, social inequality cannot be cured in the Hindu religious set up. There is no scope for upward mobility in caste and Varna. While the Constitution discusses about the remedy to pave way for the ‘educational’ advancement and ‘economic’ advancement, it is maintaining a deafening silence about the ‘social’ advancement, in spite of the fact it recognizes the existence of social inequality. On the other hand, it attempts to give protection to the Varnashrama  (a)dharma through Art.16(4).

The conspirators

The role played by the Sankaracharya of Kanchi Mutt to influence the Drafting Committee Members has been recorded in detail by his messenger  Agnihotram Thathachariar in his article, “The ideal prophet of our age”, appearing in the book “Shankara and Shanmadha”  published by the Kalaimahal Patrikalaya. The manner in which the provisions of Art.25 and other provisions had been diluted has been recorded in this first person account given by Thathachariar. It was possible for the ‘Brahmins’ to play all these behind-the-scene-tricks, as the Drafting Community consisted of three Brahmins from  the then Madras Presidency and one Brahmin from Gujarat besides a Muslim member and, the Chairman Dr. Ambedkar. No wonder, Ambedkar said that he would be the first man to burn the Constitution. It was the same Brahmin caucus which was vociferous later in opposing the adoption of Hindu Bill prepared under the Chairmanship of  B. N. Rao (who later became the judge of the International Court of Justice).The caucus led by the then President Rajendra Prasad was so vociferous that Jawaharlal Nehru had no option but to shelve the proposal. Disenchanted,  Dr. Ambedkar resigned from the Cabinet of  Jawaharlal Nehru and sat in the Opposition. It would thus become crystal clear that the Brahmins called  the ‘Shudras’ as Hindus only to be used by them as slaves and not to be treated as co-religionists on  equal footing. The saddest part of the Indian history is that the Brahmins spared no stone unturned to keep the practice of apartheid  in pure and pristine form for more than 2300 years. They do not ever answer these question directly. On the other hand, they try to justify their upper class berth without  any conscience or even any  sense of shame. 

Religion made composite to facilitate loot

 Slavery has been abolished in the West. Slavery in the name of Apartheid has been abolished in South Africa. But, the Apartheid in the form of Varnashrama in Hindu religion is not only held aloft by the Brahmins but  has also been protected by the courts of law in India. It is the birthright of everyman who has been born into the ‘Hindu’ social set-up to fight for equality. There should be no monopolistic right only for the Brahmins in priesthood. They should not be permitted to wear the cross thread and continue to deride the  others as Shudras. However, the ‘Shudras’ can have no objection to the ‘Brahmins’ wearing the cross-thread, if they keep off the temples which form part of the idolatrous Draividian  Saivite religion and  choose to embrace their own original non-idolatrous Vedic religion in which the people called by them even now derisively as “Shudras” did not have any role. The Dravidians are naturally entitled to continue their idolatrous Siva cult and also to the worship of the Mother Goddess as they were doing before the arrival of these Aryans in the Indus Valley. There would then - and then alone- be no practice of Apartheid in the name of religion, within a religion.

Cared two hoots for independence from British

The Brahmins were prepared even to abdicate the independence struggle led by the Congress when their privileged social status was sought to be dethroned in the proposed independent India. They did not bother about even splitting the Congress for that purpose. It was left to the lower classes to stomach the insult and  co- operate with the others to fight the British, even though they knew very well that the Brahmins were not ready even to  discuss about the eradication of caste system.

  “It was customary to hold a separate session for social reform immediately after the Congress in the same pandal. Even this was objected to by the political radicals and social tories’ like Tilak and others in the Congress who threatened to burn the pandal if allowed to be used by the Social conference. In a letter to Mr. Ranade, Mr. Surendranath Banerjee wrote:

“The raison de’tre for excluding social questions from our deliberations is that were we to take up such questions it might lead to serious differences ultimately culminating in a schism, and it is a matter of the first importance that we should prevent a split…”-page 51- B.R. Ambedkar – The politics of emancipation- A. M. Rajasekhariah – Sindhu Publications Private Ltd. Bombay 1)