Thursday 23 April 2015

Chaturvarna & Cross-thread Vs. Sec. 295-A IPC !

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 won’t 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.

================ 

Sec. 295-A of the I.P.C. says, 

"Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious belief of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both".



Now the question is whether or not the categorization of four varnas in the Vedic religion is still given legal recognition and protection:

Ø  The wearing of the  cross-thread by the Brahmins is a visible representation by them that they still cling on to the Chaturvarna system and proclaim to the outer world that the others are either Vaisyas, Kshatrias or Shudras.

Ø   Now the court has  held that there are only Brahmins and Shudras and no Kshatrias or Vysyas. In Manickam Vs. Poongavanam Ammal (66 MLJ 543) the Madras High Court has unequivocally declared  that all Hindus are to be considered as “Sudras” who are not shown to belong to any of the rejuvenate or twice-born class. 

Ø  So the Brahmins, as per law,  now a days declare, by wearing the cross- thread, that all the others in the Hindu fold are Shudras. They represent this contention of theirs in a visible manner.  

Ø  And a Shudra cannot go near the deity and if he does so the deity is deemed to have been polluted as discovered and confirmed by the Supreme Court (AIR 1972  SC 1586 ) and purificatory ceremonies are required to be performed with108 pots of water with the performance of Mahasanthi homam besides offering food to Brahmins. “If there was any departure or violation of any of the rules relating to worship as contained in Agamas, an image might become defiled and, in fact, purificatory ceremonies had to be performed for restoring sanctity of the concerned shrine”- Supreme Court.

Ø  That the action of Brahmins in declaring, by visible representation, that the others are Shudras, and are, therefore, inferior to them by birth, is not the concern of the court of law. 

Ø  The issue is whether the very act of wearing of the cross thread by the Brahmins constitute an insult to the non-Brahmins who are  kept within the same religious fold. 

Ø  The issue also is whether the Brahmins do or do not commit an offence under Sec 295 A IPC by such visible representation.

Ø  Do not they deliberately intend to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India, the people who have been classified by the courts as Shudras?

Ø  “Civil rights” means any right accruing to a person by reason of the abolition of “untouchability” by Art.17 of the constitution.”  -S.2 (a)

Ø  It is an offence to prevent any person, on the ground of “untouchability” (a) from entering any place of public worship open to other persons professing the same religion; or (b) from worshipping or praying in any place of public worship, or bathing in any sacred tank, well, river, lake, ghat, etc., in the same manner , and to the same extent, as is permissible to other persons professing the same religion.”  -S.3

Ø  Is not this an act of perpetuating and demonstrating untouchability? While “untouchability” practiced by man has rightly been identified and declared to be an offence, is it permissible in a ‘civilised society’ to uphold the untouchability perpetrated in the name of God? 

   Do not the Brahmins, by wearing the cross-thread, remind others that an elaborate purificatory ceremony must be performed if they go near the deity, let alone touch or perform Pujas?

I   The statement filed by the Hindu Fundamentalists, in the Supreme Court challenging the amendment to the Tamilnadu HR&CE Act of 1970 made as per the recommendation of the Committee on Untouchability, Economic and Educational Development of the Scheduled Castes, contained the following argument in support of the policy of apartheid perpetuated by them for millennia:

• If the person who goes near the deity is a Brahmin who is not a priest Samprotchanam must be done with pure water. 
• If he is a Kshatriya the Samprotchanam must be with 7 pots of water. 
• If he is a Vysya, (a) Samprotchananm must be performed with 24 pots of water and (b) Santhi homam must also be performed. 
• If he is a Shudhra, (a) Samprotchanam must be performed with 108 pots of water, (b) Mahasanthi homam must be performed besides (c) offering food to Brahmins.

Ø  Is it not repugnant to public policy to continue to allow them to wear it to enable them to deride others ‘belonging’ to the same religion?
      
Many offences prima facie punishable under s. 295 or s. 295A are really not about religion as we understand it, but are directed to communal or simply financial ends.

=================
Be careful!
I will offend you; yet I am not ‘offender’
A cotton thread converted into a cross-thread attains different status depending on the trunk on which it is worn.
The decision in the Sheo Shankar case reveals that the Brahmins can cut the sacred thread worn by any of the non- Brahmins and the Brahmins won’t be punished for their action. On the other hand, those who had cut the sacred thread of the Brahmins have been punished. It implies that the judiciary recognizes the sanctity of the Chaturvarna. It is an altogether different matter that there is no use for others wearing the cross-thread  a la Brahmins. They do not acquire the same status as that of the Brahmins. They should have been born in the twice-born class which condition they cannot satisfy in this birth The classic case is that of Sheo Shankar v. Emperor (AIR 1940 Oudh 348). It gives, it is true, a view of the communal case. Ahirs, who were Sudras assumed the sacred thread reserved for (twice-born) initiates. Brahmins forcibly tore it off. This was held by English judges not to have been an offence under either section. ‘Where persons observing the same religion broke the thread of someone whom they regarded as an upstart wearing something which he was not entitled to wear, it cannot be supposed that either the victim of assault would be likely to consider that act an insult to his religion or the assailant could be considered to have the knowledge that he was likely so to do.’
These judges had found
1.              that the Ahirs and the Brahmins belonged to the same religion;
2.              that the Brahmins had the right or power to ‘regard’ who is an upstart;
3.              that the Brahmins  had been vested with  the power to decide who is ‘entitled’ to wear the  ‘thread’;
4.            that if the Brahmins break the thread of those whom they thus consider not entitled to wear it, the affected party cannot ‘consider that act an insult’.
5.             that the Brahmins should not be considered to have the knowledge that they are likely to insult the ‘religion’ of the Ahirs.

The Brahmins could get such a beautiful judgment even in the year 1940 because the administration of justice by English judges was done only with the help of the Brahmins and the role of the Brahmins  in this regard is too recent a history to be explained.


This is  Law now
So, now the law recognizes the rights of those who happen to  have been born as ‘Brahmins’ as it has given legal recognition to the Chaturvarna system. In fact the recognition of the Chaturvarna system preceded the recognition of the “rights” of the “Brahmins”. According to the Courts, there are only Brahmins and non-Brahmins. 

The Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 contained originally the provisions for the ceremonies to be followed only in respect of the “Brahmins” and the “Shudras”  and there was reference of Kshatriyas or Vysyas. The distinction between the ceremonies followed in respect of Brahmins and Shudras had been done away with only in the year 1956.}

The Brahmins can object to the wearing of cross thread by the Shudras even now but the Shudras cannot object to the cross thread of the Brahmins and continue to gulp the insult heaped on them by the Brahmins for millennia.

In the medieval period it was the king who had to protect the cross- thread of the Brahmins and punish the offenders, ordains the Manusmiriti. “If a Sudra wears the caste identification mark (cross- thread) of the Brahmins, the King must cut off the limbs of the Sudra. (Manu. Ch.9. Slogan. 224)” Now  the role of the king has been taken over by the Courts.

The issue is whether the very act of wearing of the cross thread by the Brahmins constitute an insult of the non-Brahmins who are kept within the same religious fold. 

By wearing of the cross- thread, the Brahmins imply not only that they have been born in the first Varna but also that the others are not born in the same Varna;


By wearing cross-threads they proclaim openly that they are Brahmins and the others are Shudras, who are inferior to them by their very birth itself. 

How long should this atrocity of the Brahmins be allowed to continue?

==================================================
N.B: Point by point rebuttal to the article of Mr. Badri Prasad in Swaraja will follow.