Remnants of Caste: Good or Bad?
Please scroll down page for articles!
(1) Hindus Used as Pawns - Ramananan Gopeechand
(2) A Pandit Should be Learned in the Scriptures - Pt. Inderjeet Heeralall
(3) The Implications of castes - Indira Maharaj
(4) Media source of turbulence- Indira Maharaj
(5) Vedas, Hindu Scirptures Prohibit Caste - OP Guta
Also, see Home Page:
Under Visits of Prominent Hindu Leaders: Swami Chinyamandna's 1967
visit to Guyana
Hindus used as pawns
THE EDITOR: I note with utter disgust
the continuing bias with which one of your columnists, Kamal Persad, forces his
political and divisive agenda on the population. I refer in this instance,
particularly to his article captioned "Media blackout of Hindus" in
the Sunday Express dated April 2.
In this article, in his second paragraph, he stated that the Swami Subramuniya
who visited us on March 30, 2000, was welcomed at the Chaguaramas Convention
Centre. However, while that is correct, he made it appear that it was the Maha
Sabha that was responsible for this function. This is emphatically not so.
Permit me through this medium to set the records straight, and expose Kamal
Persad and the Maha Sabha for what they really are. Firstly, let me deal with Mr
Persad. It is either that he deliberately placed a media blackout on the
organisation that was solely responsible for the swami's visit, or that he
continues to use the Hindus in this country to peddle his political diatribe, to
the whims and caprices of the UNC and/or the Maha Sabha.
Just in case he was not aware, I am informing him that the function at the
Convention Centre was organised and hosted by the Kshi Ka Publications, headed
by Pundit Narendra Ragoonanan and Sreemati Ashwinee Ragoonanan, both graduates
of Banares Hindu University, India. Other organisations making significant
contributions were the Hindu Seva Sangh, the Chinmayanda Mission headed by Sri
Ravi Bharati, the South India Devotees of the Kali Temple at Pasea, scores of
pundits not affiliated to the Maha Sabha and scores of other individuals.
The attendance at this function at Chaguaramas came from throughout Trinidad,
and represented various groups and organisations. It should be noted, though,
that although the Maha Sabha was officially invited by the Organisation at
Hawaii, and four persons were identified to represent the Maha Sabha, there was
no representative present at the Convention Centre.
Now, let me deal with the Maha Sabha. I make a public challenge to the Maha
Sabha to deny that if they had their way, the function at the Chaguaramas
Convention Centre would not have taken place. Let them deny that they only came
into the picture when their permission was sought to have the Swami visit the
Ethel Street Hindu Mandir. Let the Maha Sabha, especially Sat Maharaj, tell the
Hindus of this country whether the Swami, a "white man", is a Brahmin.
If the answer is no, then how come they went out of their way to ensure that
they hogged a piece of the limelight, albeit for only two hours. Do the Hindus
recall the pressure the Maha Sabha exerted on Sant Keshwarda when he first
wanted to visit Trinidad?
Do the Hindus remember the criticisms levelled at such visionaries as Professor
Battachriya and Professor Adesh etc? Isn't it the same Maha Sabha, especially
Sat Maharaj, who insists that only Brahmins could be spiritual leaders? Is this
another case of the Maha Sabha playing politics with spirituality, using the
Hindus as pawns? Please answer, Mr Kamal Persad and Mr Devant Maharaj.
RAMANANAN
GOPEECHAND
Tunapuna
Pandit Should be Learned
in the Scriptures
Author: Pt. Inderjeet Heeralall
Source: Stabroek News, January 15, 2000
Dear Editor,
It is with disgust that I sometimes listen to some Pandits delivering their sermon or updesh. There is much to be desired about their use of the English language. Even their Hindi is poor and their knowledge of Sanskrit. The root reason for this is because the so-called Brahmins dominate the arena of Pandits and do not allow persons born in non-Brahmin homes to be an understudy or elevated to the position of Pandits.
A person is not born a Brahmin. A Brahmin is described as " a person of spiritual values". As a result, an individual born of Brahmin parentage will have to study and elevate themselves and live the life of a Brahmin. I know of many children who are born from Brahmin parentage and live the lives of rogues. Would you consider that person a Brahmin? Definitely not. A person is considered a Brahmin by karma or action. Today it is educational qualifications that hold the system of functional division in a society, in place. You have to be a law graduate to be a lawyer and a medical graduate to be a doctor. It does not help if your father was a lawyer, for you to become a lawyer. You need to hold the necessary qualification to enroll into that position. Similarly, a person will have to study the Hindu Scriptures, viz., the four Vedas, the Upnishads, the Geeta and other related and pertinent texts coupled with the upholding of spiritual values.
Any person who has studied the scriptures, preaches it and lives a noble and spiritual life is a true Brahmin, whether he was born from Brahmin parentage or not. The days for "anancy" stories are long gone. Followers of Hinduism are now more literate and educated than before and as a result demand healthier and educational discourses when listening to a Pandit. There is need for more educated and knowledgeable Pandits in our society. There are many brilliant persons who have great knowledge of the Hindu scriptures and who live a noble and spiritual life style. We should recognize those persons as Pandits and accept them as competent individuals to perform our religious ceremonies.
The rejection of persons born in non-Brahmin homes as Pandits is largely due to the practice of the caste system that was misinterpreted in India. The first question to address is why is there a caste system? Well, personally I have always been very ignorant of the topic of caste since I didn't really know it existed although my father was a practicing Pandit in Guyana. Hence, I am not too familiar with the justification in the Indian subcontinent. Through my philosophical exposes and my study of comparative religion, I have compared the caste system to Plato's ideal state. In The Republic, Plato argues that each person in society has a function and it is necessary for each person to fulfil his or her function for society to be just. Similarly, one can argue that the four castes were developed to give each individual a function in society. That is, with the evolution of society it was no longer plausible for the tiller of the soil to assume the functions of priests, warrior, merchant, and artisan all rolled in one. It was during my studies to become a qualified Pandit that I learnt of the Indian caste system.
The Indian caste system constitutes four castes:
1. Brahmins (priests), the highest castes, made up of those collections of
Families considered the purest and most learned among the people of India.
2. Kshatriyas (warriors), the next highest castes, made up of those collections
of families with primary responsibilities in the area of governance and
maintenance of social order, especially the function of kingship;
3. Vaishya (belonging to the people), those collections of families involved in
commerce, business and ordinary economic productivity; and
4. Shudra (servile), the lowest castes of servants of those collections of
families who serve the higher castes.
I do not see a problem with the sub-division but I do see a problem with the person who does not live the quality of life as that of a Brahmin to be considered a Brahmin. A person is therefore grouped into a caste by virtue of their occupation and not by birth. So if the son of a Brahmin occupies himself in conducting a business he will be considered a Vaishya (people that are involved in commerce). Likewise if the son of a Vaishya studied the scriptures and lives the life of a saint and preaches the religion he is a Brahmin.
Would this "Born-Brahmin" be a thing of the past? I have to be optimistic and say yes! I sincerely believe that the caste system will slowly, but surely, dwindle away. My optimism is grounded on history. With education and time false ways of thinking will change. So, in conclusion, I feel that with time the caste system in India and elsewhere will be diminished. Truth will prevail. The people will demand knowledgeable Pandits and Brahmins will be only synonymous with knowledge and proper lifestyle.
Yours faithfully,
Pandit Inderjeet Heeralall
The Implications of Caste
Author: Indira Maharaj
Source: Trinidad Express, Jan. 8, 1999
I was very surprised at Rajnie Ramlakhan's naive remarks about the caste
system and Maha Sabha's and Swaha's policy on it (Express, January 4): "Two
organisations, the Maha Sabha and Swaha require that their pundits be of the
Brahmin caste...Beyond that the issue of caste is irrelevant. Those who accuse
the Maha Sabha of discrimination based on caste ought to know that I do not know
my caste and have no interest in knowing it. Yet, I am an executive member of
the Maha Sabha and secretary of its women's arm."
The only correct assertion that she makes about caste is "it is not recognised by our legal system and no one is denied anything based on caste". Thereafter, her arguments go awry. They do not acknowledge that caste operates at a far subtler level, one which makes it far more dangerous and harmful to the Hindu community.
The fact that the Sanatan Dharma Maha Sabha is the oldest Hindu organisation in Trinidad and the largest, means that its pro-Brahmin bias, of necessity, cannot be ignored. Whether other Hindu bodies do not have that bias and so anyone can become a pundit, is secondary to the fact that a significant number of pundits are members of this organisation. And so its policy impacts on, and have implications for, the larger Hindu society, and must therefore be examined.
The most significant thing to note is that the natural inclination and moral integrity, logical prerequisites for this noble vocation, are significant requirements that are absent. (However anti-caste I may be, I have to give credit to the Swaha organisation which holds that the determination of a Brahmin is dependent on birth and by behaviour, an improvement on the Maha Sabha's position).
The consequences of this absence have been, and continue to be dire for Hinduism in Trinidad. Instead of attracting the best, it becomes a job for the worst, for many who don't have the spiritual inclination or the academic and intellectual capacity, and are unmarketable. We are thus bombarded by many pundits who treat the vocation as a lucrative financial venture. This militates against nurturing Brahminism in its true sense.
The exclusion of the best has consequences. A look at the Maha Sabha's publications at the Ramayan conference confirms it. There is the remarkable dearth of intellectualism and academic excellence, which characterises them. It accounts for the fact that when Hindu intellectuals are to be counted they can't fill a hand. Prof Anant Rambachan and Raviji, our outstanding Hindu intellectuals, not accidentally, fall outside the fold of Hindu orthodoxy. And another anti-caste organisation, the Chinmaya Mission, is showing promise. The Maha Sabha's Devant Maharaj, clearly with an intellectual inclination, uses it for propaganda purposes, not for spiritual enlightenment, or any other type for that matter.
A Brahmin and more so a pundit, is socially in an ideal position to ascend the ladder of power and leadership. A position which decreases others' chances of leadership who are probably more capable. You just need to look at some of our Hindu leaders, Bhadase Sagan Maharaj, Stephen Maharaj, Rudranath Capildeo, Basdeo Panday until his recent visit to India, to note and verify the accuracy of this. In some cases, the result has been the imposition of leaders on the Hindu community who are incompetent and self-perpetuating (present leader not excepted). The most notorious one has been a gun-toting Brahmin whose diminutive stature is a true reflection of the man.
This predisposition to power is assisted greatly by devotees who associate the names Maharaj, Gosein, Persad or Tiwarie with leadership, even if it's spiritual or social. One of the problems that has plagued Hinduism in Trinidad is the absence of true unity; an ad hoc one appears when an issue arises and puts all at risk, at which time they put aside differences and deal with the issue.
An example is Pundit Krishna's Trinity Cross issue. We don't need something as fundamental as caste to further divide us and make us more vulnerable to a morally repugnant, aggressive, proselytising evangelism, against which the Hindu community is already reeling.
And if, as Ms Ramlakhan asserts, that caste is irrelevant, what accounts for the National Council of Indian Culture being the object of abuse over the years by the Maha Sabha and in 1997 by ideologue Devant Maharaj? Prof Anant Rambachan whose anti-caste position is well known, has also invoked their wrath. And they are contemptuous of the Hindu Prachar Kendra's position on caste and gender.
The fact that if caste is not recognised in our legal system and no one is denied anything, including access to spiritual knowledge, an area in which there has been discrimination, based on caste, negates the Maha Sabha's need for its Brahmin bias, one which Ms Ramlakhan refuses to acknowledge.
As I conclude, I think Ms Ramlakhan needs to be reminded that if she wanted to be a Maha Sabha pundit, she would have been subjected to discrimination on two counts: one, caste and the other, gender, another area of discrimination in the Maha Sabha. She would have had to sacrifice her ambition in the face of what is proposed as Hindu orthodoxy. The evidence is borne out by the objections that were made when Geeta Ramsingh of the Hindu Prachar Kendra became the first female to go on to the Singhaasen and to those made to the ordination of Pandita Indrani Rampersad as she became the first female member of the cloth in 1993.
And one last question for Ms Ramlakhan, would she ever be a candidate for leadership in the Maha Sabha? I don't need an answer.
Media Source of Turbulence in T&T?
Author: Indira Maharaj
Source: Trinidad Express, January 22, 1999
I THINK, ideally, columnists should reflect a broad spectrum of views. They should be a microcosm of the society. And in communities that are mixed, whether it is of race, religion or ethnicity, it seems more than ever the moral obligation of the media to present the diversity of viewpoints of a particular group because they shape the impressions, views and prejudices of the other groups. This impacts on the wider community.
That being said, do the Indian columnists reflect a broad spectrum of viewpoints? I don't think so. If one were to be objective, it seems to me that if one has Maha Sabha connections and or if you are pro-UNC, you stand a good chance of becoming a columnist. This, in the light of the fact that the media has always had a Western, Christian, Afro-Saxon bias, and of Panday's accusation of bias against the UNC. An unlikely irony.
We have Maha Sabha columns in all the dailies, two columnists who are executive members in this organisation and one of our brightest columnists whose independence of position seems, of late, to be sacrificed by his Maha Sabha connections to the point where it seems that there is collusion between both parties. My predecessor, until that media debacle at Mid-Centre, was spewing UNC propaganda and his own brand of racism.
One may argue that in spite of the organisation to which one belongs, one can retain an independent position, one does not necessarily take with him the burdens and position of his organisations. However, evidence points to the contrary.
That the Maha Sabha is a very popular recruiting ground for columns and columnists is a source of mystery to any thinking person. After all, it is an organisation, which in spite of its Brahmin supremacist views or probably because of them, has not yet produced a real Brahmin. It is characterised by myopic leadership and holds unenlightened positions on the important issues of caste and gender. Its only real achievement in years is the Baal Vikaas programme, which was originally a response more to a diminishing devotee market than any real concern for the Hindu community. Its support base, not through any fault of their own, is primary school children at their schools.
Yet Mr Sat Maharaj, if one is to gauge from the media, is presented as the bona fide Hindu leader in the Hindu community, a proposition that a substantial portion of the Hindu community has a problem with. The media have not taken cognisance of the fact that there are more than 25 Hindu organisations, a fact that the non-Indian community is ignorant of. The Hindu Vision's Professor Anant Rambachan; the Hindu Prachar Kendra's Raviji; and Chinmaya Mission's Brahmachari Prem are the most qualified persons to speak on Hinduism in Trinidad and yet on national issues relating to Hinduism the views of the Maha Sabha are most frequently sought and publicised.
So, what accounts for its popularity with the media? Is it possible that the media is intent on presenting a lopsided view of the Indian community to the non-Indian community? Have they consciously chosen views, which would be erroneously taken as the Indian viewpoint? And to what end? Is there a hidden agenda? Is it to provide the non-Indian with reasons to be fearful of an Indian government? Are they actively contributing to the turbulence of the politics of Trinidad and Tobago? Or is it that Indian and Hindu fundamentalism is more controversial and thus more marketable than balanced, centrist views, ones that are held by the majority of the population. After all, the newspaper business is just another business enterprise. And the bottom line is circulation. And we have never had such keen competition for readers in this country before. And agents provocateurs with their capacity for creating turbulence, provide more sensational headlines than sane ones.
The reporting of Morgan Job seems to validate the view. He comes out of the woodwork and has a press conference and with his usual offensive manner makes a set of statements. It has the key words that sell in the Trinidad of today, "Indian government" and "Race". It presses all the right emotional buttons. A sure way of making the headlines of the newspapers. And true to form, it appears on the Guardian with such a misleading headline that you are sure to read it. A reading of the entire text of his comments in the Express confirmed the sensational nature of the reporting. But really, after all, who cares about responsible and accurate journalism when sensationalism sells.
They don't really have responsibility to the nation in which a society is dealing with the ascension of an Indian government with all its accompanying tensions. And selected bits of Job's speech taken out of context provide enough material for columnists like myself, for weeks.
Many may argue that an African government being replaced by an Indian government after decades, an unprecedented, strong Indian presence in the media and the irresponsibility of Prime Minister Panday as he seeks to justifiably shake the media out of its unquestioned biases, have all contributed to the atmosphere of
turbulence. And it is certainly the right of the media to record the discourse. But it is also their moral obligation to do so, responsibly. In our present scenario where everything is fluidity, where everything is being redefined, where we are now negotiating a new balance, a new political reality as it were, that responsibility is even greater.
By courting fundamentalist views which are not an accurate representations of
the Hindu and Indian body politic, and in its sensationalising the race-related
issues, it has shirked its responsibility. It has become more of an
irresponsible player, and less of a recorder, in the present turbulence of the
politics of Trinidad and Tobago politics.
Vedas,
Hindu Scriptures Prohibit Casteism
By
O.P. Gupta
Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the world and even
in India has been declining. The share of Hindus in total population of India
was 84.98 percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971, 82.6 percent in 1981
and 82.41 percent in 1991.
In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been further
revised downwards to 82 per cent in 1991 census.
This decline warrants serious introspection and reappraisal of
our socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian priests have been
working overtime to seek new converts so as to increase their demographic
weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms but, armed with
Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over last one thousand years
reduces population of Hindus by making it difficult for a sizeable chunk of
Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits) to let them remain Hindus with honour and
dignity; and, by not seeking new converts to Hinduism.
Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes,
untouchables and dalits are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and
Shrimad Bhagwat Gita!
Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of
Rigveda and slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is totally knocked
down by other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and examples set by Lord
Rama.
There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident from
simple fact that names of none of Rigvedic Rishis carry any present day caste
titles like Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, Singh, Gupta and
Namboodari.
Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only three
supreme religious scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414 rishis.
Rigveda was composed around 1500 BC but other school believes it to be older
than 5000 BC.
Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest cotton
seeds found in Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC.
All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities)
are just commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets’
imaginations.
All writings in Sanskrit are not religious scriptures.
Therefore, these latter compositions must yield to supremacy of Vedas. It is not
a new assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy of Vedas. For example,
Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are the primary/first source of
authority. So, it is logical that all such slokas of Manusmriti which are
violative of Veda stand rejected.
Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book “Hindu Law and the
Constitution” says that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti (Vedas) and
the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail.
Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. Shrimad
Bhagwat Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that Manusmriti was
composed during Kushan period, about 100 years after Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A.
Macdonnel in his book “A History of Sanskrit Literature” (1899 AD) estimates
that Manusmriti in its present form was composed near about 200 AD.
In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are not on the
same footings as law books of other nations as these are works of private
individuals (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for benefit of Brahinins
whose caste pretentions these books consequently exaggerate.
None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were approved by
any Dharam Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises to check
statements/claims made in smrities by outside sources.
Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by
Sir William Jones, an employee of the East India Company who introduced it as
the Law book of Hindus in British Indian Courts.
As devil is there in the details, let us look at English
translations of (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates “When they immolated
Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him? What was his mouth called,
what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called? His mouth became the
Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and the
Sudra was born from his feet.” Ralph T.H. Griffith translates: “When they
divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his
arms? What do they call his thighs and feet?” The Brahman was his mouth, of
both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the
Sudra was produced.”
This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa
into four parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the Purusa has been totally
suppressed in Manusmriti.
In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for growth of
people (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra from
mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create hereditary monopoly on easy
money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries after Vedas concocted that as
Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was the superior most and as Sudra was
born from feet which is impure part of body he was impure and the inferior most.
Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi are sacred (pavitra)
and those below are impure (apivatra). There is no sanction for such a
hypothesis in Rigveda.
What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed is a very
simple common sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa can be
immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated.
If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body into
pieces. This is what followers of Manusmriti have been doing over centuries -
destroying/immolating Hinduism from within by dividing/separating Hindus among
different castes by birth, at fratricidal war with each other, thus, reducing
Hindu population.
By throwing Sudras out of villages, followers of Manu
amputated feet of Hinduism, thus, made Hinduism crippled. Will followers of
Manusmriti agree to get their own feet amputated on the same logic that legs are
impure parts of their bodies?
Another interpretation of (X.90.11 & 12) is creative i.e.
emergence of a powerful (virat) man from Yajna. Acharya Shri Ram Sharma of
Bareilly translates (in Hindi) “Virat purus kitne prakaroo se utpanna huvey.
Unka mukh Brahman, bhuja kshatriye, janghaye vaishya aur charan sudra huye.”
Acharya translates these on lines of creation not immolation,
so, body of Purus is not divided into four limbs.
By common sense, a virat Purus is one who is healthy and one
is healthy only if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are joined together and work
in perfect harmony with each other.
Whenever this harmony among different parts of body is
disturbed/destroyed, he becomes paralysed and sick. So, what Rishi Narain is
saying is that a Society will emerge as the most powerful Society like the Virat
Purus only if its intelligentia (educated people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya),
business community (Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined
together and work in as perfect harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs
and feet of any healthy person work.
These two richas, thus, emphasise total equality, perfect
unity & complementarity of all the four classes of people to make a Society
powerful.
In a healthy person, mouth does not claim to be superior to
legs, arms do not claim any superiority over legs and arms do not function
independently of head (Parkinsons’s disease), as each part of a body is
composed of identically same materials and is functionally dependent upon each
other.
No part of body is inferior or superior to other part of body.
Each dependent on the other, each complementary to the other. Thus, Purus Sukta
commands harmony, unity and equality i.e. none of the four classes is inferior
or superior to other and each is dependent on the other for its healthy
survival.
But, just the opposite interpretation was created by greedy
priests and British Courts to divide and rule.
Those who say that as Sudra represent feet of Virat Purus,
and, as feet is impure so Sudras are impure should know that richa (X.90.14)
says that earth was born from same feet of Purusa. So, based on (X.90.14) Sudras
will be justified to claim the entire earth as exclusively theirs.
There is no stipulation of high or low by birth in Rigveda.
Many rishis of Rigveda under current Manusmriti definition were not Brahmins.
There are at least ten Rigvedic richas showing that profession was not
hereditary.
In richas (V.23.1) and (V.23.2) Rishi Dyumna prays to Agni
“Bestow Agni, upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may
with glory subdue all men in battle” (HH Wilson).
In (IX.112.3) another rishi says “I am the singer, papa is
the physician.” So, father of a Rigvedic rishi is a physician but in
Manusmriti a physician is a sudra.
HH Wilson translates (X.125.5) “I verily of myself declare
this which is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I render him
formidable, I make him a Brahma, a rishi or a sage.” This richa appears in
Atharveda (IV.30.03) also.
So in Rigveda profession is not hereditary but by training. In
(X.98.7) Devapi, is functioning as a purohit to his own brother King Shantanu.
Some assert that Arayns were/are fair complexioned people and
sudras are dark skinned. They also claim that four varnas were based on colours
of skin. This is not true as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are always depicted in
coloured pictures as dark complexioned (shyama varna). Rishi Kanva who richly
contributed to Rigveda was himself a dark skinned person vide RV (X.31.11).
Higher caste/lower caste and untouchability are in direct
contradiction to 12 other richas of Vedas viz. RV (VIII.93.13), RV (X.191),
Atharveda III.30 and VII.54 (or VII.52) and Yujurveda (26.02) and (36.18). Unity
in diversity is famous Indian motto.
Cows of different colours like black, red and spotted ones
give white milk (RV VIII.93.13) is a metaphor used in Vedas for diversity
yielding to unity.
HH Wilson translates (X.191.2): “Meet together, talk
together, let your minds apprehend alike: in like manner as the ancient gods
concurring accepted their portion of the sacrifice.” RV (X.191.3) “Common be
the prayer of these (assembled worshippers), common be the acquirement, common
the purpose, associated be the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer
for you a common oblation.” RV (X.191.4) “Common (worshippers), be your
intention; common be (the wishes of) your heart; common be your thoughts, so
that there may be thorough union among you.”
W.D. Whitney & K.L. Joshi translate Atharveda (III.30.1)
“like-heartedness, like mindedness, non-hostility do I make for you; do you
show affection the one towards the other, as the inviolable (cow) towards her
calf when born.” (III.30.5): “Having superior intentful, be you not divided,
accomplishing together, moving on with joint labour come hither speaking what is
agreeable one to another, I make you united, like minded.” (III.30.6): “Your
drinking saloon be the same, in common your share of food, in the same harness
do I join you together; worship you Agni united, like spokes about a navel.”
(III.30.7): “Untied, like minded I make you, of one bunch, all of you, by (my
conciliation; (be) like the gods defending amrita; late and early be
well-willing yours.”
Supporters of casteism oftenly quote slokas (IV.13) and
(XVIII.41) of Gita to support four castes by birth. In sloka (IV.13) Lord
Krishna says: “Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah” i.e. four
orders of society created by Me according to their Guna (qualities/behaviour)
and Karma (profession/work/efforts).
Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In
(XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says “Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam cha paramtapa,
karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih.” It means people have been
grouped into four classes according to their present life karma
(profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour).
Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have
naturally used “Janmani pravibhaktani” in (XVIII.41).
In (X.20) Lord Krishna says “ahamatama gudakesa sarvabhutaa
sayasthitah” i.e. “Arjuna! I am the universal self seated in the hearts of
all beings.” Here, Lord neither excludes sudra from “all beings” nor
excludes Himself from being in hearts of sudra.
In (XVIII.61) Lord says “eshwarah sarvabhutaanaam
hraddesearjuna tisthati” i.e. Arjuna! God abides in the heart of all living
beings.” Again, sudras are not excluded.
In (XIV.4) Lord Krishna says “of all embodied beings Arjuna,
prakrti or nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed giving
Father.” Thus, Lord Krishna says that he is as much Father of sudras as he is
Father of any other Hindu.
In (XVI.18) Lord Krishna says: “Given over to egotism, brute
force, arrogance, etc. they hate Me dwelling in their own bodies as well as
those of others.”
Thus, Lord Krishna instructs that a Hindu must not hate bodies
of others Hindus as He is there in bodies of all so Gita prohibits
untouchability.
In (XVI.19) Lord curses Manu supporters: “These haters,
sinful, cruel and vilest among men, I cast (them) again and again into demonical
yonies (wombs).” In (XVI.20) Lord again curses Manu supporters: “Failing to
reach Me, Arjuna, these stupid souls are born life after life in demoniac wombs
(asura yoni) and then verily sink down to a still lower plane.” In (XVIII.71)
and (V.18) Lord again instructs equality of all Hindus.
Shrimad Valmiki Ramayan (1.1.98 to 100) also says whosoever
including sudra reads it will achieve greatness and get rid of all sins. Thus,
Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and read all
these.
In Ramayan, Lord Rama has set following two lessons for all
Hindus which we witness every year in Ramlilas but never follow in our practical
lives.
Ravana was a grandson of risi Pulatsya. He was an expert on
Vedas too. So, he was a Brahimin by birth under Manu definition as well as a
Brahimin (educated) by qualification (veda-gyata) but he and most of his family
members were killed by Lord Rama for their wrong doings. So, the first lesson of
Ramayana is that everyone is equal before law.
Lord Rama visited Shabri, called her a mother (mata); ate food
from her hands and washed feet of Nisadraj. Lord Rama lived for years among
vanvasi (tribals). So the second lesson of Ramayana is that a true Rambhakta
should never discriminate against SC/ST/Dalit Hindus, should never hesitate to
visit and dine with them. Mahatma Gandhi always followed both these two lessons
of Ramayana.
Thus, the central command of the 14 harmony richas and 10
profession not hereditary richas of Vedas is that all Hindus are totally equal
by birth, of one bunch, share same water and food, worship together united in
same temple, common are prayers, common purpose, common thoughts, united like
spokes of a wheel, common oblation and friendly towards each others.
One becomes a warrior (Rajnya), Brahman (educated ones) or
rishi, not by birth but by his efforts/training (karma) vide RV (X.125.5). No
one is superior and no one is inferior by birth.
[The writer is the Ambassador of
India to and above are his personal views.]