(Friends, the following is the Rejoinder to the counter-arguments of Mr. Manivannan which is available in Part II of this Serial. The link is given here to facilitate reading and referencing. http://vaeyurutholibangan.blogspot.in/2014/10/the-sins-of-ancestors-vs-role-of_24.html )
British : Indians : : Brahmins : Non-Brahmins
When the conflicts between the Hindus and Muslims, during the period of independence struggle, were referred to in a querry, Mahatma Gandhi replied that there was, in fact, no problem between the Hindus and Muslims except those created by the British. As long as the British remain here, they would create problems between the two and would not allow them to settle, said Gandhi. Edward H Said refers to this episode in his book ‘Culture and Imperialism’. In all probability, the British must have been surprised that the technique of Divide and Rule followed by the Brahmins of India for about 3000 years by then had been working so successfully for the oppressors, who createdVarna and, then, caste system in the sub-continent and then perpetuated by creating dissension between one another and making it essential for rulers to ‘Protect’ it.
Rulers, coerced to protect Varna System
Hindu - Muslim divide, which was a bogey created by the Hindu press then, is only horizontal while the Varna and Caste divide is vertical. The Brahmins believe that they could incite one group against the other periodically without any rapproachment, so that they remain at the top. They enjoyed the sadistic pleasure when the infighting among the slaves continue without anyone taking notice of the role played by the originators of the conflict. They have, formally and methodically, been trained in this art of subjugation, by Chanakya, the First Political Terrorist of the World. In Chapter I titled “Means to injure an enemy”, in Book XIV, of Arthasastra, Chanakya makes it the duty of the king to protect the caste system. He refers to those who oppose the system as ‘wicked’ people. He narrates numerous conspiratorial methods that must be used for finishing off those ‘wicked’ people. Poisoning those ‘wicked people, setting fire to their houses, spreading poison through smoke in the wind, blinding the animals, methods of killing persons within a fortnight and within a month, etc., have been elaborated and enumerated by Chanakya for the education and guidance of his descendants. Dhana Nanda who brought in an egalitarian society was annihilated. King Vena who refused to follow the discriminatory penal code invented by the Brahmins was murdered cold-bloodedly by the priests. Temple premises were used to assassinate such kings, as narrated in Arthasastra. The past habit continues till date in different forms. It is now left to the ordinary people to fight for the casteless society in India.
Chanakya’s era to British era
Numerous methods of creating dissensions between different groups have also been given by Chanakya. He did not, in essence, distinguish between the enemies during the period of war and the people who opposed the social-divide perpetuated through the Varna and Caste system. And that was followed by his descendants all through the history until the advent of the British era, during which period only the the millennia-old mischief played by the Brahmins got exposed to a great extent with evidence.
Creating animosity against X by sympathising with Y
Creating animosity against Y by sympathising with X
Extol the Nizam and enslave the non-Brahmins
One such descendant of Chankya was Dalapati, the notorious jurist in the medieval era who codified a law to enslve the Sudras (which term includes all non-brahmins in the Hindu fold). Dalapati was the minister under the Muslim ruler of the Nizamshah dynasty of Ahmednagar which ruled Daulatabad. “Dalapati was an effective politician who had infiltrated the court of the Nizam Shah and managed to induce the Sultan to allow Hindus to be ruled independent of the Shariat under their own legal code”. He had written a Hindu civil, penal and ritual law called Nrisimha prasada. Composed during the period between 1490 and 1520, that book, like all other Dharmasastras, was meant to tighten the strangle-hold on the BCs and the SCs. His work would show that the intention of the Brahmins had been to retain their strangle-hold over the non-Brahmins, by praising the rulers, whoever it might be. While writing it, Dalapati had "extolled in several stanzans" the Muslim ruler. His Hindu law was enforced in that kingdom with such vigour that it has become part of the history of Hindu law. It also gets mentioned in Mayne's Hindu Law and Usage. 14th edition.
Remove the top-most slab first
(The top-most slab says,
"Hey, No. 4! It is No. 3 which is crushing you and not me")
When a man is crushed by the weight of the slabs that had fallen over him, one must remove the slab on the top first and then the next. Nobody can say that that victim was being crushed only by the lowest slab which was crushing his body and not the topmost slab. But, in India, the top slab is in the habit of diverting the attention of the lowest slab to focus on its immediate higher slab. As long as people believe in the propaganda of the top-most slab all other slabs, except the top-most one, will continue to suffer under the oppression of other slabs.
The top-most oppressor. Enjoying the world by keeping all the people below them and crushing them all.
|
Slab 1:
Brahmins
|
Classified as Brahmins in Varna order
|
Oppressed as well as oppressor.
Persons suffering under the weight of one slabs above them and are crushing the third and fourth slab below them.
|
Slab 2:
Non-Brahmin
Forward Castes
|
All the three categories are classified together as Sudras in the Varna hierarchy in the South
|
Oppressed as well as oppressor.
Persons suffering under the weight of two slabs above them and are crushing the fourth slab below them.
|
Slab 3:
Backward Classes
|
|
The Oppressed.
Persons suffering under the weight of three slabs above them.
|
Slab 4:
Scheduled Castes
|
So, unless the top-most slab is removed first, the other slabs below that cannot be removed, easily and it is also not necessary to keep the top-most slab as it is. When there was temple entry in Madurai, the Brahmins who opposed it had locked the temple and propagated that the Goddess Meenakshi had run away. Periar cited this incident and said that when the Brahmins lose their varna-based privileges, they would carry on the movement against the varna system with more vigour.
The arguments of Mr. Manivannan prove very clearly 1. that the Brahmins are not going to forego their ill-gotten privileges, on their own and 2. that they would always instigate the subjugated classes to act against one another.
World history testifies to the fact that, very rarely, oppressors saw reason in the struggle of the oppressed and acceded to their right.
With apologists like Mr. Manivannan, we know that our struggle for an egalitarian society will be only by educating the masses and helping them to extricate themselves from the cruel propagandists who, with mala fide intention, divert the focus of the suppressed.
=================================================
That said, I would like to give para-wise reply as under:
Para 1: I do not disown responsibility of intermediate castes in joining hands with the Brahmins to suppress those who are below them. But, it is always simpler to remove the burden from the top. Mr. Manivannan has not explained anywhere in his posts why the Brahmins should continue to retain the privileges like hereditary priesthood in money-spinning temples, etc., It is not the intermediate castes which deny the right to any caste ‘lower’ in the Brahminical Social Order. It is only the Brahmins who oppose all the non-Brahmins officiating as priests, in spite of the fact that they passed the examination and became qualifed to officiate as posts. Mr. Manivannan would do well to answer this question, without being wishy-washy once again.
Besides, Buddha and Mahavira and Asoka were not Aryans. All the non-Brahmins in India in the Hindu fold were and are Dravidians only. They were, later, classified by the Brahmins (Aryans) to be Kshatriyas (because the Brahmins were afraid of their muscle power), Vaisyas (because the Brahmins were willing to yield to money power) and Sudras. That they permitted cross-thread to be worn by the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas and, thereby, called them too as Dwijas does not make them Aryans.
Para 2: I am not required to justify the commissions and omissions of the Dravidian parties. The fact is that the goal of the casteless society is yet to be attained. As long as the Brahmins oppose mainly the priesthood to non-Brahmins, they will subotage the efforts taken by others. They will always find some Pon.Radhakrishnan who is prepared to sit on the floor in front of Mr.Jayendran of Kanchi without any sense of shame. We will have to fight against the attitude of those people too.
Para 3: Inter-caste marriages happen, in spite of the crooked casteists led by the Brahmins. It was the Brahmins who first started their campaign against inter-caste marriage both in ancient history and in the contemporary history. They compel all the brahmin boys of 15 years of age to promise that they would not marry outside their Varna, in spite of their being minors. Is it not a crime? People like Mr. Ramadas and others follow suit to achieve their myopic and astigmatic selfish ends.
Para 4: There had been many non-Brahmin leaders who came around like colossus to eradicate the caste system. Mahavir, Buddha, Narayana Guru, Mahatma Phule, Savitribai Phule, Periyar, Ambekdar were some of them. Individual contributions by learned scholars are many many. But, among the Brahmins, we could see only one person who was an activist against casteism during the last 3500 years and he was Bharatiyar, who was ostracised for havign cropped off his tuft and his bonhomie with non-Brahmins.
Para 5: I agree with Mr. Manivannan that the Sun TV, Kalaignar TV, etc., are also not doing what they are requiered to do. I understand that they are blackmailed by various brahmin-controlled central government organisation to keep their mouth shut on various social and political issues. I find their roles shameful, too.
Para 6: I believe that if the descendants want to enjoy the ill-gotten benefits bequeathed to them by their ancestors, they are guilty and must accept the fact that they are subject to criticism. Mr. Manivannan tries to justify the atrocities of Brahmins by citing the atrocities of the intermediate castes against the lower castes. I condemn both while Mr.Manivannan justifies the former by citing the latter. Sadistic.
Para 7: Will Mr. Manivannan first of all explain why the Brahmins oppose non-Brahmins officiating as priests in the HRCE temples? How dare they filed a statement in the Supreme Court that the God would get polluted if the non-Brahmins go near the deity. The fact is that the clients of Mr. Maninvannan practice apartheid in its cruellest form in India, within the Hindu fold. Apartheid in South Africa was skin-deep. But, the aparthied practised by the Brahmins in India in soul-deep.
Para 8 & 9: Mr. Manivannan does not see what he does not want to see. Making priesthood in all the Hindu temples to all the Hindus is the first step towards eradication of caste system. Waxing eloquence pretending not to have seen this point does not make a person a social scientist trying to find answers to the social ills.
Para 10: As already said apartheid in Hinduism is worse than the apartheid in South Africa. Secondly, as Socrates said cleansing any system is like cleaning the stair case. It must start from the top. It is like removing the top-slab first and then the next and the next. The efforts of Mr.Manivannan to cover up the misdeeds of the Brahmins of the past and present cannot work.
Para 11 & 12: The Vedic era before the advent of Buddhism was the most barbaric era in the history of the sub-continent when the Chaturvarna system had a field day without anyone opposing it. That era will not be allowed to be resurrected in spite of the efforts of Mr. Manivannan.
=======================================
As long as the Srutis, Smritis which contain anti-subjugated class tirade are eulogised and as long as the Brahmins cling on to them and thereby keep on declaring that I am a Shudra, - with all consequential implications, I am entitled- repeat, I am entitled - to exercise my right of defence and rebel against them with precise and pointed questions.
When the Brahmins humiliate me, I have to point out only their atrocities. As already mentioned by me in my earlier post, I am for a society that is egalitarian. The requirements, I have enumerated in http://vaeyurutholibangan.blogspot.in/2014/08/towards-civilised-india.html
No comments:
Post a Comment