Sanskrit Kashmir, Kashmiri Pandits and the Caste
Reality
By Shailendra Aima
Originally posted on the Facebook in 2011.
INTRODUCTION
Sometime back, a discussion ensued at a web
portal about Kashmiri Pandits, the Sanskrit roots of Kashmiri Culture and
Pluralism. It was amazing that some Kashmiri compatriots, now resident outside
in the US and the Middle East became highly volatile and denounced the Sanskrit
heritage and tried to demonize the Kashmiri Pandits, for being the “Brahmins -
the powerful elite of the Hindu social hierarchy”, who were charged of
perpetrating the “ugly reality of social stratification developed along the
lines of Caste and Jati” for
thousands of years.
On October 17, 2011, I posted on the
same web portal a comprehensive document, “The Sanskrit Himalayas” written by
Dr. Shashihekhar Toshkhani who had developed this paper after I posted him
about these accusing and demonizing charges by a section of Kashmiri Diaspora.
I am so grateful to Dr. Toshkhani for bringing to light some hitherto unknown
facts that had been consigned to antiquity.
The discerning readers and students
of the Indian history would appreciate that the millennium and a half, which
began with the Muaryas and ended with the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate,
was a glorious period of Sanskritic proliferation in arts, literature,
spirituality, poetics, aesthetics, linguistics, drama, philosophy, Yoga,
Sankhya, Mimamsa and criticism. It was a unique period in Indian history
that saw to the development of both classical and folk traditions; the Sanskrit
language and the regional dialects; and the growth of the central as well as
regional powers in the Indian sub-continent. This period was a period of
immense development of the Indian mind, its knowledge systems, its technology,
its Universities and educational institutions, as well as of strong economy, expanding
trade and prosperity.
Vaishanavism, Shaivism, Budhism,
Tantra and Monism brought about an avalanche of Bhakti – an unprecedented
spiritual activity that paved way for its manifestations in devotional poetry,
a hunger for personalizing man-God relationship and growth and development of
regional languages across the sub-continent.
Kashmir was in the forefront of these
developments and made its unique contribution to Indian culture and way of
life. It shall be very relevant to state that these aspects of uniqueness
of Kashmir’s contribution to the Indian civilization still mould the minds of
Kashmiris and are manifestly visible in our prayers, hymns, thoughts and
actions even today and make us proud of our Sanskrit heritage and roots. This
unique period in India’s cultural and civilizational context can’t be treated
just a continuum of the “Vedic period”. We believe that this unique
period in India’s cultural and civilizational context should in fact be treated
as a leap above the “Vedic period” and hence is referred to by Panun Kashmir as
the period of “Sanskrit Civilization”. I don’t find any coherent, logical
and cogent reason for these critics to find the term “Sanskrit Civilization” so
offensive, abominable or abysmal, as they would like it to be.
In fact this discussion started when
I posted a note while refuting the charges of communalism and separatism levelled
against Panun Kashmir. My note, “Panun Kashmir and Pluralism”, was a
political articulation of Panun Kashmir’s stand on the issue of Pluralism and
Kashmiri Pandits, which these critics detested. It became quite obvious that
one of the critics lost her cool when I made some references about conversions
in Kashmir by a Shiite Sufi, Mir Shamasuddin Araki or Iraqi (as different
historians have referred to him) who had managed to convert a significant
number of Kashmir's Hindu population to the Shi'a sect during
the reign of Fateh Shah(1496–1505). These conversions were made using
force as described in the Persian book 'Bharistan
-e-shahi' written during those times, as also in 'Tohfatul Ahabab'. In fact as mentioned in these chronicles,
in one single instance, 960 Kashmiri Hindus who resisted conversion were
slaughtered under his (Mir Shamasuddin Araki’s) guidance. This mention to Mir
Shamasuddin Araki infuriated her; and as I now understand, she holds Mir
Shamasuddin Araqi in high esteem. This is a tragedy in Kashmir, where
somebody’s “freedom fighter” is another’s terrorist.
After my protracted interactions and
attempts to understand the real content and motives behind this denunciation, I
came to this conclusion that these critics were trying to project Panun Kashmir
as comparable and equivalent to the
Jehadi/ Azaadi mongerers. They wanted to project that the Kashmiri
Pandits had no right to claim themselves to belong to any different class,
ideology or thought process; and that the Kashmiri Pandits had rather been more
oppressive during thousands of years (for, as alleged, they had been
responsible for imposing “the ugly reality of caste and Jati”), than those who
are the perpetrators of iconoclasm, proselytization and ethnic cleansing in
Kashmir. In their bitterness, they went on to denounce Kashmiri Pandits
for being Brahmins – the so-called “elite and the powerful of the Hindu social
hierarchy”. Perhaps, the intent has been to tell the Pandits that they
have received back what they had wreaked upon others in the past. It is
therefore quite evident that these critics are part of a campaign to vilify and
malign the Kashmiri Hindus. These critics seem to have joined those who
have been spreading lies and concocting distortions about Kashmiri Pandits in
order to scorn and look down upon their pain and ignominy; and downgrade the
geo-political import of their mass exodus and ethnic cleansing from their
habitat.
So, while keeping all these aspects
in mind, I wrote back to the main ideologue of this denunciation, who happens
to be a teacher of historic linguistics in a University in the US. The
issues mentioned by her and on which she focuses her denunciation of Panun
Kashmir and Pluralism are therefore derived from her amazing ability to
interpret (or misinterpret) linguistics and historicism. I have dwelled upon
all these issues, but for present let’s look at her understanding of the terms
“communal and communalism”.
COMMUNALISM
What is COMMUNAL? As per these
critics, any objective cantered round the welfare of a particular community is
communal. This is not a negative connotation, at all. In fact, such
an interpretation is rooted in the concept of communes – collective living
and/or closeness shared together by individuals. Communal in the context
of community life or closeness of individuals in a group or shared living/
experiences is not a contemptuous term. Communal is negative when it is
interpreted in the context of communalism - a matter of disagreements leading
to conflicts within a larger society where these disagreements arise because
the units of the larger community tend to individuation of their
interests/objectives/aspirations as opposed to the interests/objectives/ aspirations
of the other communities and converting these differences into conflicts.
If the interpretation of communal as presented by the critics is adhered
to, then all such organizations and movements, who speak up for, stand up to
and work for the amelioration of the victim communities around the globe should
be called communal. Then all those speaking for women’s rights are
communal, those fighting for the rights of Palestinians are communal; the
Sachar Commission’s findings and mandate are communal; and so are probably
anyone and everyone who articulate grievances / welfare objectives of this or
that community which is a victim or is perceived to be so.
Submitting grievance ‘in itself’ is
not communal. How can speaking of the welfare of one’s community be
communal, especially when the Kashmiri Pandit community has been subjected to
discrimination, murders, plunder by the members of ‘other’ community by
creating fear and through killings and through political or ideological
intimidation, and has been forced to abandon its habitat and to live in exile
as refugees/ internally displaced persons; to put it rather in a perspective
“cleansed ethnically?” It’s possible that through it some kind of
communal narrative can be built; but there is a world of difference between
‘can’ and ‘is.’ For in that case you are closing the doors on expression for
justice on all discriminated communities of not just India but of the world.
SANSKRIT & PRIDE
The critic further avers that the
statement “We also maintain that it is because
of us – the Kashmiri Hindus, that Himalayas have been Sanskritized” is a highly loaded one, loaded with the sense of pride and superiority
of a certain minority group”. I don’t understand whether the critic has a
problem with the notion of SANSKRIT CIVILIZATION or with a sense of “pride and
superiority” of a certain MINORITY GROUP (the KASHMIRI PANDITS)? It seems that
the critics have a problem with both. Though it may not appear very
pertinent why they talk about “a sense of pride and superiority of a certain
minority group”; a little into it and one would understand the entire import of
it. As one would notice in the original note, I write: “… we
maintain that we are Hindus. We also maintain that it is because of us – the
Kashmiri Hindus, that Himalayas have been Sanskritized. It is the Hindus
of Kashmir who played a decisive role in carrying the Sanskrit civilization to
Trans-Himalayan regions, in China and Central Asia”. The critic added of
her own, the phrase “a certain minority group”. What was the impending
need to invent such a phrase, especially when I never used the qualifier of
“minority or majority”? To me it appears that it was a caution to the
Pandits of Kashmir: “remember you are a minority group”? Now, is the
notion of being a “minority” a handicap – some sort of emaciation, a
weakness?
Being a minority does not make the
rights of the Kashmiri Pandits, both legal and moral, either redundant or
infructuous in Kashmir; nor does that render them irrelevant in Kashmir’s context
– social, political and cultural. In fact, the rights of Kashmiri Pandits
are special and privileged since these are not merely a set of normal rights
but special Rights, under the aegis of the UN and other International Covenants
and Conventions on Human Rights and other Refugee and IDP Provisions.
It is a well established fact that
Kashmiri Hindu sages and scholars played a significant role in Sanskritization
of the Himalayas and the trans-Himalayan regions in central Asia and South East
Asia. That the millennium and a half, from the reign of Mauryas up to the
establishment of the Muslim Rule in the Indian sub-continent, was a period of
Sanskrit proliferation and a proliferation of philosophy, poetics, literature,
drama, aesthetics, linguistics and great arts, to which the Hindus of Kashmir
contributed immensely. To quote from Dr. Shashishekhar Toshkhani: “With
the Silk Route straddling the Himalayas virtually becoming the Sutra Route, the
Central Asian regions soaked in the wisdom of Sanskrit Sutras that transmitted
the sophisticated values and subtle abstractions of the Mahayana
philosophy. The intercultural exchanges began right from the time of King
Ashoka and bestowed upon these regions a luminous worldview with two places in
particular emerging as great centres of Sanskrit learning – Khotan and
Kucha. Khotan, the Land of Jade, had an intimate relationship with China.
With Khotanese scholars acquiring a profound knowledge of Buddhist texts and
Sanskrit language, it played a crucial role in the onward transmission and
translation of important Buddhist Sanskrit sutras like the Suvarnaprabhasotama, Prajnaparmita, Saddharma-Pundarika and Avatamshaka. It fell finally to the
Islamic onslaught of the Karkhanid Rulers of Kashgar in 1006 after 40 years of
bloody war. Kashmir itself was known as Kashi of Central Asia for being a
great centre of Sanskrit learning before it was over-run by Islam. Works
of Sanskrit litterateurs have been abundantly discovered from Turfan, Dun Huang
and Khotan, including fragments of Sanskrit āgamas and plays and kavyas of Ashvaghosha”.
If the Hindus of Kashmir believe that
Sanskrit civilization forms a significant part of their heritage, how is that
wrong? A pride in one’s past and heritage is not a disadvantage, but it
definitely brings out ones relevance, especially when one is down and out after
being victimized and pushed into exile. It motivates one to reclaim her
lost habitat with a purpose to re-establish the long cherished values of
humanism, catholicity and pluralism; and to reinvent the aesthetics and arts
that have not just been abandoned but comprehensively demolished in today’s
Kashmir.
PRESENT PREDICAMENT
We expected these critics to
empathize with the predicament of the exiled Kashmiri Hindus, and encourage us
to articulate our rights and return plans; encourage us in re-affirming our
faith in the values of co-existence and pluralism. But the utterances of these
critics clearly reflect that they have problem with Kashmiri Heritage and the
faith of Kashmiri Hindus in pluralism? Are they inimical to the possibility of
a new renaissance to enlighten the Kashmir of today? Would they not like
the seminal ideas and works of Panini, Patanjali, Bhasa, Kalidasa, Bhavabhuti,
Kumarjiva, Asvaghosha, Utpaladev, Abhinavgupta, Khshemendra, Nagarjuna,
Vasubandhu, Asanga, Dharmakirti, Padmasambhava, Shantideva, Vimalaksha,
Sanghabhuti, Punyatrata, Dharmayashas, Shakyashribhadra, Ratnavajra,
Kamalashila, Kalhan, Bilhana, Bana, Ananga, and hundreds of others from Yogini
Lalleshawari to Ahad Zargar, Shamas Faqir and Waz Mehmud, to be further
explored, interpreted, discovered, reinvented and reconstructed in modern day
Kashmir, and also to the benefit of the entire humanity?
Well, may be the very idea of a
renaissance might have a problem with an Islamist perspective of Kashmir,
because that perspective is not inclusive. Well known author Arun Shourie has
aptly summed up this attitude in his book ‘Eminent Historians’ in the following
words: “In a word, both corruption and evil are germane to Hinduism. Hinduism
is Brahminism. Brahminism is that ‘ism’ which serves the interests of the
Brahmins: these interests can only be served by the exploitation and oppression
of people of lower castes. Hence Hinduism is essentially an arrangement for the exploitation and oppression of the mass of
people.” And as for Islam, “Islam equals peace, brotherhood, the ascent towards
monotheism.” And therefore, “the aggression, the butchery, the devastation
committed by Islamic rulers is to be sanitized.”
IS SANSKRIT CIVILIZATION A
HYPOTHETICAL CONSTRUCT
These critics further go on to claim
that “Sanskrit” (‘civilized’) civilization in fact is a hypothetical construct
based on the ugly reality of social stratification developed along the lines of
Caste and Jati.” While the critics stand adequately educated on the issue
of Sanskrit Himalayas and the role played by Hindus of Kashmir towards its
Sanskritization by the scholarly write-up of Dr. Toshakhani (posted by me on
October 17, 2011) on the subject, it has become important that attempts at
juxtaposing Sanskrit with “the ugly reality of social stratification developed
along the lines of Caste and Jati” are thoroughly examined and also put in a
perspective.
What in fact do the critics
imply? They presume that by juxtaposing Panun Kashmir’s
notion/belief of a Sanskrit Civilization with the “ugly reality of Caste and
Jati”, they would succeed to bring down the so-called “pride and superiority”
of the Kashmiri Pandits. I fail to understand their purpose; is it to
denounce Panun Kashmir’s claim to pluralism and prove it flawed, or to denounce
Kashmiri Pandits and their claim to Sanskrit Civilization and pluralism; and
make them into the monsters, the harbingers of a caste system that emaciated
humanistic endeavours among the Hindus and paved way for a socio-political
dynamics that led to “proselytization drive that was conducted by the various
invading Muslims much later in the time-depth (and) was facilitated if not
motivated by such ugly and unfortunate social stratification.” The
critics seem irked not so much by Panun Kashmir, but by the claim of Kashmiri
Hindus to pluralism, which they vehemently try to establish as nothing more
than a deliberate, systematic manifestation of the caste-system that perpetrated
inhumanity and oppression for centuries, much before even the advent of Islam
in India and the “so-called conversions” associated with it.
The critics have also tried to
establish a case against the priestly class among Hindus, namely the
Brahmins. They aver that there is no “Sanskrit” civilization as such, but
a superimposed concept emerging from among the select social (and in a way
political) class - the privileged priestly class (the Brahmins). In
fact, the critics also go on to claim that there is no “Sanskrit language …….
but a superimposed variety ….. deliberately constructed” …… as if it were a
“sacred language (refer to the commendable attempts by Hindu priests and
grammarians to keep “Sanskrit” as unchanged through centuries, -- because it was
the God’s language”. And then they make a comparison of such attempts by
the Sanskrit grammarians with the attempts by the Arabic liturgy. The
critics perhaps again presume that a case against the Hindu priestly class (the
Brahmins) shall automatically turn into a case against the Kashmiri Hindus
(Pandits) who too are Brahmins.
It is pertinent here to talk about
the social structure of Kashmir before the advent of Islam and to put into
perspective the caste-reality of Kashmir. On the basis of still extant
source materials; pioneering work of great value has been done in the recent
decades by erudite scholars like Dr. Ved Kumari Ghai, Dr. S.C. Ray, Dr.
Shashishekhar Toshkhani and Ajay Mitra Shastri to prepare a coherent and
connected account of ancient Kashmir’s social and cultural life. Yet the field
of investigation is so vast, and the available evidence so limited, that there
still remain large areas which are unexplored and unlimited.
CASTE & VARNA
Varna Vyavasthaa has been an integral part of Hindu
social life since ancient times. In the Rig Veda, which is the oldest surviving
record of human writing, there are verses in a hymn called the Purusha Suktam. Purusha Suktam is
hymn 10.90 of the Rigveda, dedicated to the Purusha, the
"Cosmic Being". One version of the Suktam has 16 verses, 15 in
the anuṣṭubh meter, and the
final one in the triṣṭubh meter.
Purusha
is described as a primeval gigantic person, from whose body the world and the varnas (socioeconomic classes) are
built. He is described as having a thousand heads and a thousand feet. He
emanated Viraj, the female
creative principle, from which he is reborn in turn before the world was made
out of his parts.
The Purusha Suktam verses
when translated mean that “In the sacrifice of Purusha, the Vedic chants were
first created. The horses and cows were born; the Brahmins emerged from
Purusha's mouth, the Kshatriyas from his arms, the Vaishyas from
his thighs, and the Shudras from his feet. The Moon was born from his
mind, the Sun from his eyes, the heavens from his
skull. Indra and Agni emerged from his mouth”. This
order of the varnas undoubtedly forms a hierarchy asserting the primacy of the first two,
but at the same time it is made clear that the society consisting of the four
orders is held together by the principle of dharma or human values. As
Dr. G.C.Pandey puts it, “Society was thus conceived as a hierarchy in the true
sense of the word, i. e. in the sense of a society governed in accordance with
sacred principles, not in the sense of a society governed by priests.”
Obviously, the hierarchy was socio-cultural and ethical and not at all ethnic.
What do actual facts say about the
caste system and Jati whose “ugly face” so haunts the critics? Well,
according to Dr. G. C. Pandey, an international authority on ancient Indian
history and culture, “Race consciousness in the modern sense attaching itself
to colour or physical type was never a part of the Indian consciousness”.
Nowhere in the ancient Indian (Sanskrit) literature, he points out, has the
term arya been used in
the racial sense. The assumption of some Western scholars that a branch
of the Indo- Aryans called themselves “Arya” as a racial designation is only an
unsubstantiated hypothesis with no basis in facts related to Vedic language and
society. Sayanacharya and other well-known Vedic commentators
interpret the term arya as “pious” or “noble”. It also has the meaning of “liberal” or
“worthy” in some hymns of Rigveda (RV 4. 26. 2 and 2. 11.18); the term has
actually been used more in Buddhist texts as an honorific than in Vedic
literature. In later literature also the generalized meaning of the word
‘arya’ tends to be
‘noble’ or ‘pious’ or else ‘a freeman’.
Another work that is considered an
important source for ancient sociological, political and historical studies in
India is the Manu Smriti. Manu Smriti is one of the most heavily
criticized of the scriptures of Hinduism, having been attacked by colonial
scholars, modern liberals, Hindu reformists, feminists,
Marxists and certain groups of traditional Hindus. Much of its criticism
stems from its unknown authority, as some believe the text to be authoritative,
but others do not. There is also debate over whether the text has suffered from
later interpolations of verses.
The Manu Smriti was one of the first Sanskrit texts studied
by the Europeans. It was first translated into English by Sir William
Jones. His version was published in 1794. British administrative
requirements encouraged their interest in the Dharmashastras, which they
believed to be legal codes. In fact, these were not codes of law but norms
related to social obligations and ritual requirements. But the fact
remains that the text was never universally followed or acclaimed by the vast
majority of Indians in their history; it came to the world's attention through
the translation by Sir William Jones, who mistakenly has exaggerated both its
antiquity and its importance. It would be pertinent to point out that the Manu Smriti is not the only civil code
followed by the Hindus. There are civil codes of Parashar, Yajnyavalka
and Brihasapti also, followed by large sections of the Hindu population. The
tendency to jump at the Brahmin’s throat, though some of the greatest social
reformers of India belonged to this community, springs not from any spirit of
academic research but from irrational hostility.
According to scholars like Zimmer and
Muir, the early Vedic age was “wholly caste free”. Even in the later
Vedic age when priesthood developed within the varna-vyavastha (later interpretation as caste system by Europeans),
the relationship between different social categories was not simply linear or
hierarchical with the Brahman at the
top and the Shudra at the
bottom. Sociologists of caste like M.
N. Srinivas have pointed to many complexities that arise particularly “in
the analysis of the middle rungs of the hierarchy”. What the emergence of
the varna system
accomplished was to do away with the “particularism” of primitive ethnic tribes
and clans and conceive the society “as a universal order”. In the conceptual
ordering of social categories under this system, each varna (caste) was ideally associated
with one kind of occupation – the Brahmans pursued knowledge and
performed priestly functions, the Rajanyas or Kshatriyas were holders of temporal
power and warriors, the Vaishyas were engaged in production
of wealth through trade and agriculture and the Shudras engaged in labour
and menial work. But the meaning of the categories changed in accordance
with reference to the conceptual order of Hinduism and to its empirical order
as numerous occupations emerged in later time irrespective of social groupings.
Thus the Brahmans did not confine
themselves to priestly functions but were also seers and poets, teachers, councillors
and even agriculturists. In the Mahabharata we also find them giving lessons in
the use of weapons to Kshatriya princes. The Kshatriyas in turn were not only
administrators and warriors; they pursued knowledge and learnt other skills as
well, sometimes instructing even Brahmans in spiritual matters. But
soldiery was not limited to Kshatriyas alone; other castes also were recruited
to the army by the ruler. The two lower castes constituted the mass of
non-Brahman householders called vishah (Vaishyas). Being farmers,
traders and artisans, they were regarded as the “economic support of the
society”. In fact, the line of distinction between the Vaishyas and
Shudras was very thin and the two terms were virtually interchangeable. The
Shudras subsumed several occupational groups of artisans within the fold of
their caste.
Basham in his book The Wonder That Was India suggests that the jati
system in its modern form developed very late perhaps not before 1000 A.D.
Vishnugupta Chanakya, the
author of Arthashastra, never mentioned any social laws prevailing in the
society during the Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta's reign. The Chinese
scholar Hsuan Tsang in the seventh
century was not aware of it.
Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to India in the 4th century BC, noted the
existence of seven classes, namely that of philosophers, peasants, herdsmen,
craftsmen and traders, soldiers, government officials and councillors. These
classes were apparently Varnas, and not separate Jatis. Megasthenes, who
visited the Maurya court at Pataliputra (Patna), also noted: “All Hindus are
free, and none of them is a slave. Further, they respect both virtue and
truth.”
Huen Tsang, the most famous of the Chinese Buddhist pilgrims who visited India in
7th century writes: "Though the Hindus are of a light temperament, they
are distinguished by the straightforwardness and honesty of their character.
With regard to riches, they never take anything unjustly; with regard to
justice, they make even excessive concessions. Truthfulness is the
distinguishing feature of their administration.”
Al-Idrisi a Spanish born Muslim geographer in the 11th century visited India
and reported in his journal that "Hindus are naturally inclined to justice
and never depart from it in their actions.” In the 13th century, Marco Polo described Brahmins he
encountered “as the most truthful, for they would not tell a lie for anything
on earth.” A few decades later Friar Jordanus emphasized that the people
of Lesser India (South and Western) “are true in speech and eminent in
justice."
Abu Rihan Muhammad
bin Alberuni, who accompanied Mahmud Ghazani to India in the
12th century, spent several years here and studied Sanskrit besides astronomy
and mathematics. He wrote extensively on India and its many aspects. He
describes the traditional division of Hindu society along the four Varnas and
the Antyaja - who are not reckoned in any caste; but makes no mention of any
oppression of low caste by the upper castes. “Much, however the four castes
differ from each other; they live together in the same towns and villages,
mixed together in the same houses and lodgings. The Antyajas are divided into
eight classes -- formed into guilds - according to their professions who freely
intermarry with each other except with the fuller, shoemaker and the weaver.
They live near the villages and towns of the four castes but outside of them”.
On the eating customs of the four
castes, Alberuni observed that “when
eating together, they form a group of their own caste, one group not comprising
a member of another caste. Each person must have his own food for himself and
it is not allowed to eat the remains of the meal. They don't share food from the
same plate as that which remains in the plate becomes after the first eater has
taken part, the remains of the meal”.
An initial broad classification of Jati made in
earliest references is 4-fold:
- i.
Udbhija (coming out of ground like plants),
- ii.
Andaja (coming out of eggs like birds and reptiles),
- iii.
Pindaja (mammals) and
- iv.
Ushmaj (reproducing due to temperature and ambient conditions like
virus, bacteria etc).
Similarly, various animals like
elephant, lion, rabbits etc form different ‘Jaati’. In same manner, entire
humanity forms one ‘Jaati’. A particular Jaati will have similar physical
characteristics, cannot change from one Jaati to another and cannot
cross-breed. Thus according to Vedic connotations (Purush Suktam) “Jaati” is
creation of Ishwar or God.
Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and
Shudra are no way different Jaatis because there is no difference in source of
birth or even physical characteristics to differentiate between them.
Later, word ‘Jaati’ started being used to imply any kind of classification.
Thus in common usage, we call even different communities as different ‘Jaati’.
However that is merely convenience of usage. In reality, all humans form one
single Jaati.
The fission of castes into a
multiplicity of hereditary jatis occurred, according to the noted
socio-anthropologist Veena Das, due
to “a variety of reasons such as occupational diversification”. A jati, she explains, “is identified by a combination of
three principles of organisation viz. descent, locality and cult”. The basic
question is that of identification of thejatis and the relations of jatis, Brahmans and others, at the empirical level
within the caste system. And it is here that an undue emphasis is laid on the
principle of hierarchy ignoring the meanings associated with the different
conceptual categories. It has to be noted that while the jatis proliferated with their own customs and usages, a
semblance of the original ideal was still preserved with respect to the varnas that subsumed them. It has also to be noted that
a sharp difference of views on the social functions and statuses of caste
categories between “Brahmanical and non-Brahmanical thinkers continued into
classical time”.
Though the Shudras were conceived as
the servitors, this description did not exactly correspond to reality, for
Shudras were clearly neither “non-Aryans, nor outcastes nor slaves, nor lawless
labourers produced through expropriation of property”. “Servitude did not
reflect their permanent situation either occupationally or legally”, says G. C. Pande. There are numerous
examples from history showing Shudras gaining upward social mobility and
acquiring higher social status or even political power. What greater
proof of this can be than the fact that Chandragupta
Maurya, who was the son of a Shudra mother, became emperor of India and the
mighty founder of the Mauryan Empire due to untiring efforts of Chanakya, a Brahman? Both the
authors of the two great Indian Epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, Valmiki and Vyasa, were not Brahmans.
Valmiki was a hunter and Vyasa the
son of a fisherwoman; yet is there anyone more respected by the Brahmans than
they are? In the Mahabharata, Vidura is counted a Shudra, but at the same time he is treated with
great respect by all for his wisdom. There are also references in Vedic
literature to Shudras being chosen as members of the king’s council. In the Rajatarangini of Kalhana, we see Suyya,
an abandoned child brought up by a Shudra woman, rising to become King
Avantivarman’s minister. The fact is that there is a wide divergence
between social theory and social reality so far as the caste system is
concerned. For a detailed and true picture of the society in ancient
India, it would be useful to refer to Kautilya’s
Arthashastra. The evidence of Megasthenes,
who declared, that “all Indians are free and not one of them is a slave”, is
also important in this context. Megasthenes describes seven social
classes as distinct from the conventional four castes that constituted the
Indian society in his times.
An important point to note with
regard to the rise of the jatis is that they were autonomous units based on “functional
specialization”. The reason why there were numerous jatis when there were only four theoretical castes is
attributed by early social thinkers to a mixture of the varnas or castes resulting from intermarriage. The
phenomenon of inter-caste marriage
was so prevalent that it led to the development of the concept of varnasankara in the Dharmashastras and the Smritis. Admitting to the fact of intermixture of jatis through marriage, Manu gives a detailed
description of the progeny of anuloma (mother being from lower varna), pratiloma(father being from lower varna) and doubly mixed castes, and speaks
of the anomalous situation arising due to their not fitting into the
conventional caste scheme.
BRAHMINS
Although in the traditional parlance
the jatis may pay lip service to the Brahmin as an intermediary to the gods
when it comes to ritual, each caste considers itself to be the highest. If the
Brahmins were to be accepted as the highest caste then other castes would have
no hesitation in giving their daughters to the Brahmins. But in reality they do
not. The Rajputs consider the Brahmins to be other-worldly or plain beggars;
the traders consider the Brahmins to be impractical; and so on. In classical
Sanskrit plays, the fool is always a Brahmin. In other words, each different
community has internalized a different outlook on life but these outlooks
cannot be placed in any hierarchical ordering. The internalized images of the
other must, by its very nature, be a gross simplification and it will never
conform exactly to reality. Why is it that the Sanskritic as well as the folk
narrative in India has mostly shown Brahmins as daridras living in penury and depending on alms?
From Sudama to Narsi Mehta to Purander Das to Chaitanya to Swami Ramkrishna,
the Indian lore is full of references to thousands of these poor ubiquitous
Brahmins’ narratives, of those who lived in penury, never wielded the sword or
the wealth and still commanded respect and love and transformed the face of the
Indian society.
The Brahmans themselves were
fragmented into numerous sub-divisions, and among them too the priests “tended
to approximate to a professional guild”. It is clear from the Buddhist
literature that they were engaged in a number of professions which they were
not theoretically supposed to adopt. Thus, as pointed out by G.C.Pande, the Dasabrahmana Jataka mentions ten kinds of Brahmans engaged in diverse professions. The Shantiparvan of the Mahabharata also speaks
of several varieties of Brahmans. Undoubtedly, the Brahmans took up
diverse professions like medicine, trade, agriculture, astrology and also
worked as the king’s councillors, ministers, officials and even soldiers,
besides specializing in various branches of knowledge, teaching and performing
religious rites.
This occupational diversity among different
social groups can be attributed to the changes brought about by the growth of
town-life, trade, industry, political activity and several other factors. The
formation of the mahajanapadas or geographically large republics and the emergence of the community
of influential shramanas or Buddhist ascetics were also important aspects of the post-Vedic and
early medieval social scene. The shramanas challenged the supremacy of the Brahmans and
their hereditary position and disregarded all caste distinctions, their patrons
drawn from all sections of the society – the Kshatriya clansmen,
agriculturists, Brahmans, outcastes, servants, courtesans, criminals, rich
traders, affluent craftsmen etc. The point to be understood here is that
the Brahmans did not wield any excessive influence over the social dynamics of
pre-modern India to be declared the villains of the piece who suppressed the
lower castes and non-Aryans.
How is it that the two Heroes of
Sanskrit literature, Ram and Krishna are shyam-varna (dark skinned) and a great Hindu God, Shiva too is dark skinned?
If the theory of the critics about Sanskrit people is to be believed, then
were Shiva, Ram, and Krishna lower caste or the non-caste (the out-caste)?
Were Valmiki and Vyasa the liturgy or the Brahmins, who
forced a Godhood upon the shudras (being dark skinned) just for exploiting
them?
Vyasa is also called Krishna
Dvaipayana, was grandfather to the Kauravas
and Pandavas. Their fathers,
Dhritarashtra and Pandu, adopted as the sons of Vichitravirya by the royal
family, were fathered by him. He had a third son, Vidura, by a serving
maid. Valmiki, it is believed was an
unnamed highway robber who used to rob people before killing them. Some text
versions of the Uttara Khanda name him Valya Koli. The legend states that when
confronted with Narada, the robber had a realization and he went into
meditation for many years, so much so that ant-hills grew around his body.
Finally, a divine voice declared his penance successful, bestowing him with the
name "Valmiki": "one born out of ant-hills" (Valmikam in
Sanskrit means Ant-hill)”.
Caste – A
European Construct
Caste is a European innovation having
no semblance in Vedic culture. Jaati
means a classification based on source of origin. Nyaya Sutra states “Samaanaprasavaatmika Jaatih” or those
having similar birth source form a Jaati. The two words commonly
considered to mean ‘caste’ is Jaati and Varna. However the truth is that, all
the three mean completely different things. In fact, as a response to
historical events one might credit the emergence of the modern jati system to
the next fundamental changes in the Indian polity that occurred with the
invasions from the West Asia and the European adventurism.
Some of these critics when confronted
by Dr. Ramesh Tamiri, responded to
his queries and comments with vehemence and derision, as if these were coming
from a person inferior to them. In fact, a critic remarked: “I have better things to do than explain to ill-informed people how
they are wrong.” The way this critic, with her
over-inflated ego, has reacted to Dr. Ramesh Taimiri’s views and understanding
of the history of the caste system, pouring scorn and ridicule on his arguments
and calling him “ill-informed”, makes it evident that anything related to
India’s ancient past and its cultural and intellectual traditions is an
anathema to her. The boot so far as being “ill-informed” is concerned, however,
seems to be on the other foot. It is the critic, who despite assuming the
expertise of a social anthropologist and a linguist is appallingly ignorant of
the conceptual and empirical aspects of Indian (Hindu) social reality.
Nor does she seem to have studied its cultural and epistemological meanings. As
her statements show, she is just repeating the theoretical assumptions of the
Western colonial historians and their followers of the Marxist variety who
stereotype the Hindu social categories without any real knowledge of their
historicity. Hence, it has become all the more mandatory on my part to write comprehensively
on the caste-reality viz. a viz. the Brahmins (the privileged priestly class)
in general and the Pandits of Kashmir, in particular.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE & CASTE IN
KASHMIR
Let us revert to the Nilamata Purana and its reference to immigrant
Brahmins who followed Chandradeva
and settled in Kashmir. It is highly possible that a bulk of them were from the
Saraswati Valley who must have decided to migrate to Kashmir after the
legendary river changed its course and finally dried up. There is a strong
tradition among Kashmiri Pandits that they are Saraswat Brahmins, and the
presence of a large number of words of Vedic origin in the Kashmiri language
seems to confirm it. From accounts given in the Nilamatapurana, Rajatarangini
and other early sources, they “appear to have emerged as the dominant and
highly respected social group in Kashmir, not just because they were associated
with religious rites and ceremonies, but because of their intellectual
proclivities, their natural gravitation towards cultivation of cerebral graces.
They were intellectual people who prized learning above everything else. And
indeed it is because of their contributions that Kashmir came to be known all
over the world as a great seat of Sanskrit learning”. In the ancient texts
referred to above, we see them as people “engaged in self-study, contemplation,
performance of sacrifice, penance and the study of the Vedas and Vedangas.”
Respect was shown to them because they were supposed to be “itihasvidah” and “kalavidah” that is knower of history and
the connoisseurs of art”. And who can provide a better proof of this than
Kalhana, the great author of
Rajatarangini, and the whole host of chroniclers of Kashmir who followed him — Jonaraja and Shrivara, Pragyabhatta
and Shuka.
Brahmins were also required to have a
thorough grounding in the six schools of philosophy, astrology and astronomy,
grammar, logic, prosody and medicine, besides religious texts. They had to live
an austere life and adhere to a high moral code. Nowhere has it been suggested
that they should be worshipped “as gods on the earth” even if they are
illiterate and ignorant. And yet Brahmins have been equated with priests
(clergy) and as representatives of an exploitative and oppressive social order,
by the Critics who think that they can bring down the Kashmiri Pandits by
indulging in Brahmin bashing. They accuse the Brahmins of exploitation,
usurping power, of appropriating and of ossifying the Sanskrit language and
converting it into God’s language.
There is no doubt that Brahmins did
hold a high position in the society, but mainly as an intellectual and
scholarly class, and not all of them adopted priesthood as their profession.
And those who did were not much respected as they were recipients of donations
and sacrificial fees and not donors. The donor was the patron, the ‘yajamana’ who hired a priest to have a
religious sacrifice or ritual performed. And anybody could be the patron under
the yajmani system - including a
Brahmin.
In fact, the Brahmins took up several
occupations, besides serving as priests. They were katha-vachakas or narrators
of Puranic stories, astrologers, vaidyas or physicians, teachers, and even
agriculturists. Some of them joined the administrative service also and became councillors
and ministers. Some, like Kaihana’s own father Champaka, adopted the military
career.
Dr. Sunil Chandra Ray in his outstanding research in “Early History and Culture of Kashmir” comes to believe
that there were no intermediate castes in Kashmir, not even Shudras. “Though the conception of
the population as consisting of the four traditional castes was not altogether
unknown”, he writes, “there was no such caste as Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra
in early Kashmir”. While he describes Brahmanas as “definitely the more
privileged and honoured caste”, he mentions Nishadas, Kiratas, Dombas,
Shvapakas and Chandalas as the lower castes. The Nishadas the Kiratas,
the Dombas etc. were no doubt there, but the Kshatriyas and the Vaishyas were
not altogether absent, though they have not been mentioned in that detail. The Nilamata Purana describes the functions
of all the four traditional castes and says that representatives of all the
four participated in the king’s coronation. In fact, Kalhana uses the term Kayastha for all those who were
appointed in State’s service and would include Brahmins as well as the others,
though there are hardly any references to Khshtriyas
or Vaisyas, as the case may be in
other parts of the country.
The Rajatarangini does make references to Kshatriyas as well as
Vaishyas in the context of Kashmir’s ancient history. Anyhow, there is no
reference in it of tensions between the castes, or anything like the priest–king
collusion to maintain hegemony over others. The Brahmins, however, are often
shown as resorting to prayopavesha or hunger-strike to get their demands accepted by the king. The
confrontation between King Jayapida and the Brahmanas of Tulamula is a well
known example.
There may not be many direct
references to Vaishyas as such in Rajatarangani and other early works, but Kalhana does mention the emergence of a
rich and prosperous merchant class. With the opening of overland trade routes
during Kanishka’s rule, and perhaps earlier, trade and commerce with foreign
countries appears to have received a boost. Commercial activity must have been
particularly brisk during the rule of the Karkotas. Extensive conquests
by kings like Lalitaditya had opened vast markets for Kashmiri goods in
neighbouring territories. The Valley was full of wealthy merchants, says
Kalahana, with some of them living in palatial buildings excelling the king’s
palace.
Damodargupta’s reference to shreshthin and vanikas
also indicates the existence of a rich and prosperous trading community during
his time, belonging probably to the Vaishya
caste. Many among the upward mobile artisan classes in the Valley too must have
belonged to this community.
As for the Shudras, Nilamata counts
the karmajivin (workers) and shilpis (artisans) as Shudras – that is,
the weavers, carpenters, goldsmiths, silversmiths, blacksmiths, leather-tanners
and potters. They were treated with respect in the society and were among those
who exchanged gifts with the “higher varnas” during the Mahimana celebrations, says Dr.
Ved Kumar Ghai.
The servants serving in the houses of
the higher castes too belonged to the shudra varna, since no jati is mentioned.
They were treated with sympathy and were included in the list of the persons
“in whose company the householder feasted and enjoyed”. The very fact, writes
Dr. Ved Kumari, that the Nilmata describes the Shudras as taking part in the
coronation ceremony of the kings, shows that they were not debased.
There were people belonging to mixed
castes also like Suta, Magadha and Vandi who lived by singing the paeans of heroes and other famous
persons. Dr. S.C.Ray counts
the Nishadas, Kiratas, Dombas etc.
among the low caste people but stops short of calling them Shudras. The Nishadas, who lived by hunting and
fishing, are also described as boatsmen in the Rajatarangini. The Kiratas,
who were hunters and animal trappers, were a forest dwelling tribe belonging to
the Tibeto-Burman stock. The Dombas
have been described in the Rajatarangini
in association with the Chandalas as
huntsmen belonging to the menial class. Kalhana
calls them “Shvapakas” or “dog-eating
people”. But they have also been shown as good musicians who made quite a
profession of their singing and dancing. Kalhana mentions the story of a Domba singer Ranga whose daughters
gave a performance in the glittering royal assembly hall of Chakravarman and were included in the
king’s seraglio, one of them becoming the chief queen much to the chagrin of
others. Consequently, Dombas became the favourites of the king and wielded much
influence at his court as councillors. Chandalas were bravos and fierce
fighters. They worked as executioners and were also employed as the king’s
watchmen.
If at all, there could be a division
of early Kashmiri society into four castes and their sub-castes, it was only
notional. In actual fact, the
caste-system was never rigid in Kashmir, or of a tyrannical character.
Intermarriages between various castes were not uncommon, as we learn from works
like the Katha-Saritsagara. It
is, therefore absolutely irrelevant to talk of social-organization in terms of
“ugly reality of Caste and Jati” in context of Kashmiri Hindus and their
legitimate claims to pluralism. The society in Kashmir was actually divided
along occupational or socio-economic lines. Dr. Sunil Chandra Ray writes: “Three distinct classes of
people evolved, along with their several sub-divisions,
on the basis of three
principle methods of production (agriculture, industry
and trade)”. While agriculturists constituted the bulk of these occupational
classes, artisans and merchants too had important roles to play in the society.
Noted Historian Dr. M L Kapoor in his Kingdom of Kashmir (p 236) state: “It seems that
the varna and the caste feelings had never been strong…..unlike the Dasas of
India, the Nagas, earlier inhabitants in Kashmir, were given equal, rather
superior status by the latter immigrant; and the latter began even to worship
their gods and deities”.
Around the 8th century, in Kashmir, a
new class of feudal landlords known as the Damaras,
appeared on the scene and started gaining control of agriculturist economy. We
do not hear of them in the Nilamata Purana, nor do we hear in the first three
books of the Rajatarangini, till we find Lalitaditya – who was Kashmir’s most
powerful king - warning his successors not to leave cultivators of the land
with more than what they require “for their bare sustenance and the tillage of
the land”. Otherwise, he says ‘they would become in a single year very
formidable Damaras and strong enough to neglect the commands of the kings”. And
then we learn that they -were agriculturists who, owned large chunks of land.
Lalitaditya’s warning appears to have had no effect, for we see the Damaras
becoming wealthier and gaining more and more strength. By the time the
Lohara dynasty ascended the throne, they had become so rich and powerful that
they began to interfere in the affairs of the State. Living in fortified
residences, they raised large private armies and established their strongholds
all over Kashmir. Such was their power and influence that they were able
to extend their stranglehold over the administration, becoming virtual
king-makers, enthroning or dethroning anyone according to their wish. In the
wars of succession that became endemic after the 10th century, we find them
supporting one claimant to the throne or the other, their support often proving
to be the deciding factor.
This is what happened in the
internecine conflicts between Ananta and Kalasha and Kalasha and Harsha, each
of them vying for their help. Powerful rulers like Didda, Ananta, Kalasha and
Jayasimha used every stratagem to curb them, including the use of military
force, but the Damaras continued to retain their nuisance value. Dr. Sunil Chandra Ray attributes the
rise and growth of the Damaras not
only to the “weakness of the royal authority” and “the constant wars of
succession”, but also to “the economic structure of the society’’, which
because of increasing dependence on agricultural lands for revenue proved
helpful to the rise of the landed aristocracy. As their wealth and influence
increased, the Damaras came to be looked upon with respect in the society, with
royal families establishing even matrimonial relations with them.
While agricultural and trading
communities were very important elements in the society from the socio-economic
point of view, the artisan classes also witnessed a significant growth in early
Kashmir. These included the weavers and the jewellers, metal casters and
image-makers, potters and carpenters, blacksmiths and leather tanners etc.
Although their sphere of activity was quite wide, there were no corporate or
traders guilds in Kashmir as in other parts of India.
There were also occupational communities who served the society in various other
ways. Among these could be counted the wrestlers, the actors, the dancers, the
physicians, the shepherds, the gardeners and also the courtesans who plied the
world’s oldest trade. These people were not directly connected with the
production of wealth, but nonetheless had their own place in the society.
Yet another class, which
distinguished itself from all the classes mentioned above, was that of the administrators. It consisted of the
nobility and the bureaucracy. As Dr. Sunil Chandra Ray has pointed out,
the highest civil and military officials were drawn from the nobility, and
these included the sarvadikara (also
called dhi-sachiva) or prime minister, stiehiva
or minister, the mandalesha or
governor and the kantpanesha or
commander-in-chief. Being important officers of the State, the nobility drew
lame salaries from the royal treasury.
The bureaucracy assisted them in
running the general administration of the State It consisted of all kinds of
officials, both high and low, all of them being known by the general
connotation “Kayastha”, which did
not denote any particular caste. As I have mentioned earlier, the members of
any caste or class could be recruited as Kayasthas, including the Brahmanas.
Both Kalhana and Kshemendra have hated them for their
greed and for their cruel methods of exacting revenue and taxes from the
people. Kshemendra gives a long list of their designations in his works Narmamala and Samaya Matrika. Describing them as an exploitative and oppressive
class, he exposes their fraudulent ways and bungling, and accuses them of
forgery, misappropriation and embezzlement. Kalhana too speaks about them in the same vein. The common man
appears to have been squeezed between the tyrannical Damaras and the oppressive
and greedy Kayasthas, though not all Kayasthas could have been like that.
Where does it leave the critics’
attack on the priestly class or the Brahmins? They must explain where
from they got such information and with what authority did they speak in such
astringently damning words about the Brahmins and then use the phrase “ugly
reality of social stratification developed along the lines of Caste and Jati”
and for which they hold the Brahmins (the Hindu priestly class) responsible, as
if the Brahmins in India had enjoyed the same position and privileges as were
enjoyed by the Christian clergy during the medieval times or is still being
enjoyed by the Fatwa announcing Muslim clergy in today’s Muslim world.
To me it appears that she has drawn heavily on the narrative of the
imperialist/colonial European scholars of the nineteenth century, whose only
aim has been to distort Indian history to suit their ideological and
politico-strategic aims.
CASTE AS A BRITISH LEGACY
Now coming to the period of British hegemony, not only had India’s resources been
pillaged for decades by the rapacious East India Company, the inexorable
British Raj also set about enshrining caste in the Indian administrative
structure, modelling it on the British colonial class system. The
`scheduled caste’ is an entirely British creation, into which the lowest strata
of Indian society has been perpetually pigeonholed. As there was no
classification of caste in the Indian legislation prior to this juncture, it
was the British who single-handedly formulated the caste schedules that remain
in place today. The evils manifest in the current form of the caste
system therefore cannot be ascribed to the Hindu faith.
The British of that period practiced
their own ‘class system’ and, even
within their own ranks, there was a rigid ‘order of precedence’ which pervaded
all areas of daily life, including seating arrangements for dinner.
Indians were excluded from interacting socially with Europeans and there was an
enforced colour bar in place
throughout the subcontinent with ‘Europeans
only’ clubs. Indians were not allowed to travel by railway carriages, or
use railway waiting rooms as these were reserved for Europeans. Not only that,
Indian judges were not allowed to try Europeans in their districts. The Ilbert Bill introduced in the British
Parliament in 1883 during Lord Ripon's viceroyalty to remedy this situation,
had to be withdrawn in the face of vicious opposition by Europeans and
Anglo-Indians. Claude
Alvares has written: "The English establishment viewed
themselves as a separate ruling caste; like other Indian castes, they did not
inter-marry or eat with the lower (native) castes. Their children were shipped
off to public schools in England, while they themselves kept to their clubs and
bungalows in special suburbs known as cantonments and civil
lines."
In addition to the explicit
discrimination experienced by Indians, European
scholars further promulgated various philosophical arguments, and to which
the critics too ascribe, that fair-skinned natives of the north were in fact
descendants of a superior Aryan Race
that had entered India from the west and brought with them the Vedas. Hindus to the north of
India were considered by these European scholars to be the hybrid descendants
of this superior Aryan race and the indigenous Indian populace. Hindus
throughout India were debased as being savage and heathen in nature and the
idea followed that Vedic culture must have originated from a ‘superior’
Caucasian race. This ‘Aryan
Invasion Theory,’ one school claims, was developed by Max Muller in 1848, a highly paid German employee of the East India
Company in order to deny any political or moral basis to the Indian claim for
independence from British Rule. For, under this theory, Hindus as well as the
Muslims too were as much foreigners in India as were the British. This theory
was not openly challenged for over 120 years and even many Indians were duped
into believing they were descendants of a superior foreign
civilization.
Such an imperialist hypothesis was
designed to ensure that the British were allowed ‘legitimate’ political rights
over India as did Hindus and Muslims, all being foreigners. There is an
implicit notion among some British historians to this day that their coveting
of India and her assets was more through ‘mutual’ consent of the host than
coercion, often comparing this subtle method to the brutish colonization of the
Americas. Western scholars further theorized that the dark skinned
southerners (Dravidians) were the
indigenous Indian populace and primitive in nature, thus proliferating disunity
between Indians in the North and South.
Kevin Hobson in his path breaking study “The Indian Caste System and The British:
Ethnographic Mapping and the Construction of the British Census in India”,
makes the following observations. He states “The freebooters of the 18th
century were giving way to the bureaucrats of the 19th century. It is highly
debatable which of the two, freebooters or bureaucrats were the most dangerous
to the people of India……. Treasures can be replaced. Cultures, once tampered
with, are nearly impossible to reclaim”.
Hobson further observes: “The caste system had been a
fascination of the British since their arrival in India. Coming from a society
that was divided by class, the British attempted to equate the caste system to
the class system. …. during the 19th century caste was not what the British
believed it to be. It did not constitute a rigid description of the occupation
and social level of a given group and it did not bear any real resemblance to
the class system. ….the British saw caste as a way to deal with a huge
population by breaking it down into discrete chunks with specific
characteristics. Moreover, it appears that the caste system extant in the late
19th and early 20th century has been altered as a result of British actions so
that it increasingly took on the characteristics that were ascribed to by the
British”.
Kevin Hobson goes on to state: “The word caste is
not a word that is indigenous to India. It originates in the Portuguese word “casta” which means race, breed, or
lineage. However, during the 19th century, the term caste increasingly took on
the connotations of the word race. Thus, from the very beginning of western
contact with the subcontinent European constructions have been imposed on
Indian systems and institutions. To fully appreciate the caste system one must
step away from the definitions imposed by Europeans and look at the system as a
whole, including the religious beliefs that are an integral part of it. To the
British, viewing the caste system from the outside and on a very superficial
level, it appeared to be a static system of social ordering that allowed the
ruling class or Brahmins, to maintain their power over the other classes. What
the British failed to realize was that Hindus existed in a different cosmological frame than did the British”.
Thus, it may be seen that within
traditional Indian society the caste system was not static either within the
material or metaphysical plane of existence. With the introduction of European
and particularly British systems to India, the caste system began to modify.
This was a natural reaction of Indians attempting to adjust to the new regime
and to make the most of whatever opportunities may have been presented to them.
Moreover, with the apparent dominance exhibited by British science and medicine
there were movements that attempted to adapt traditional social systems to fit
with the new technology. Men such as Ram
Mohan Roy, Swami Dayananda, and Ramkrishna started movements that, to
one degree or another, attempted to explore new paths that would allow them and
their people to live more equitably within British India. Roy in particular
sets this description with his notion that the recognition of human rights was
consistent with Hindu thought and the Hinduism could welcome external
influences so long as they were not contrary to reason. There was a dynamic
interplay between the British and Indians that had a profound effect on both
societies. While the Mughals had
issued written decrees on the status of individual castes, there had never been
a formal systematic attempt to organize and schedule all of the castes in an
official document until the advent of
the British censuses. The data was compiled on the basis of British
understanding of India. This understanding was deeply affected by British
concepts of their own past, and by British notions of race and the importance
of race in relation to the human condition. Further, the intellectual
framework, which was provided by anthropology and phrenology and used to help
create the ideas surrounding the concept of race, was foreign to the intellectual
traditions of India. These concepts endured well into the 20th century and
affected the analysis of the censuses throughout this period. Risley, for example, used
anthropometric measurements, which were directly descended from anthropological
and phrenological methodology, in his ordering of castes following the census
of 1901. These same notions led to a classification of intelligence and
abilities based on physical attributes, and this in turn led to employment
opportunities being limited to certain caste groupings that displayed the
appropriate attributes.
EVOLUTION OF SOCIETY & CASTE
STRATIFICATION
Indians attempted to incorporate
themselves into this evolving system by organizing caste sabhas with the purpose of attaining
improved status within the system. This ran contrary to traditional views of
the purpose of the caste system and imposed an economic basis. With this, the
nonmaterial rational for caste was degraded and caste took on a far more
material meaning. In this way, caste began to intrude more pervasively into
daily life and status became even more coveted and rigid. In a sense, caste
became politicized as decisions
regarding rank increasingly fell into the political rather than the spiritual
sphere of influence. With this politicization, caste moved closer to class in
connotation. The actions of the Indian people that contributed to this process
were not so much acquiescence to the British construction, as they were
pragmatic reactions to the necessities of material life. In expropriating the
knowledge base of Indian society, the British had forced Indian society and the
caste system to execute adjustments in order to prosper within the rubric of
the British regime.
In this manner, India's awareness of
its own society, the societal structure, history and culture was manipulated in the hands of colonial
ideologues. Domestic and external views of India were shaped by authors whose
attitudes towards all things Indian were shaped either by subconscious prejudice or worse by barely concealed racism. For instance, William Carey (who bemoaned how so few
Indians had converted to Christianity in spite of his best efforts) had little
respect or sympathy for Indian traditions. In one of his letters, he described
Indian music as "disgusting", bringing to mind "practices
dishonourable to God". Charles
Grant, who exercised tremendous influence in colonial
evangelical circles, published his "Observations" in
1797 in which he attacked almost every aspect of Indian society and religion,
describing Indians as morally depraved, "lacking in truth, honesty
and good faith" (p.103). British Governor General Cornwallis asserted "Every native of
Hindostan, I verily believe, is corrupt".
Unable to rise above the colonial paradigms, many post-independence scholars of Indian
history and civilization continue to fumble with colonially inspired doctrines
that run counter to the emerging historical record. And hence, it is often
difficult to have a dialogue, since prejudice sweeps their minds and distorts
their ability to see reason.
HINDUISM & SEMITICISM
I never stated nor did my note
declare any grand standing of Kashmiri Pandits’ position. In fact, it is the
critics who should explain why they believe that we are assuming a superiority
and if at all, then viz. a viz. whom. We have repeatedly stated that we believe
in pluralism and wish good and peace for all. Again, is it so that the
critics do not agree with the tenets of proselytizing religions, which
developed in West Asia and are called Semitic religions and so treat my
statement as an inferiorization of what are Semitic Religions? In fact, I
had stated: “How are Semitic Faiths
different from Sanskrit Faiths?
The basic difference is that the Semitic faiths are essentially
mono-theistic, the Sanskrit faiths are Pluralistic. We, as upholders of these
faiths, do not distinguish between the jeevas (mankind as well as other animals) and
believe them to be carrying the essence of same atman. The Semitic faiths
distinguish among Human kind and other life. They distinguish among people on
the basis of the Faithful and the other. That is why there is a concept of proselytization; and the Sanskritites
don’t have that concept. The Semitic faiths have caused conflicts and strife by
dividing mankind among believers and non-believers. The Semitic
civilizations invaded each other in the name of religions, fought wars,
indulged in ghettoizing the non-believers, annihilation of the non-believers,
in waging the Crusades.”
Talk to any faithful Christian or a
Muslim, and you would know that both these religions hold proselytization as legitimate
and moral. And I nowhere dispute their right to preach their faith and
convert more faithful to their creed. But I do state that the Sanskrit faiths,
especially the Sanatan Dharma does
not believe in conversions. And then I give my reason for that. I
also state that the Sanskrit religions do not discriminate among humans on the
basis of their faiths, as BELIEVERS and NON-BELIEVERS, as the Semitic Religions
do. Do I make a false statement, a derogatory statement, a grandiose statement?
I believe that I don’t.
CHARGE OF RACIAL SUPERIORITY
What the critics further do is to
create a unique construct that the “Sanskrit civilization was an offspring of
the notion of the (so-called) Aryan Race”.
They however don’t provide any arguments in support of that; they assume a lot,
but these assumptions lead them nowhere.
Civilization and race are two very
different things. That the Indian civilization, in any of its
manifestations, ever propounded any sort of racialism is an astounding
construct created by these critics. The Hindu Sanatan principles treat
the entire universe as one family (Vasudeva Kutumbakum). The Upanishads speak so: “Ekam Sada, Vipraha Bahudah Vaddanti” – meaning that
the wise men describe the Truth in different ways. In the Bhagavad Gītā (4:11), God,
manifesting as Krishna, states that "As people approach me, so I receive
them. All paths lead to me (ye yathā māṃ
prapadyante tāṃs tathāiva bhajāmyaham mama vartmānuvartante manuṣyāḥ pārtha
sarvaśaḥ)”. The Hindu religion has no theological difficulties in
accepting degrees of truth in other religions. Hinduism emphasizes
that everyone actually worships the same God, whether one knows it or
not. Just as Hindus worshiping Ganesh is seen as valid by those
worshiping Vishnu, so someone worshiping Jesus or Allah is accepted.
Many foreign deities become assimilated into Hinduism, and some
Hindus may sometimes offer prayers to Jesus along with their traditional forms
of God.
Racism is a product of capitalism. It grew out of early
capitalism’s use of slaves for the plantations of the New World, it was
consolidated in order to justify western and white domination of the rest of
the world and it flourishes today as a means of dividing the working class
between white and Muslim or black, and native and immigrants or asylum seekers.
The justification of slavery by an ideology of racism
started to fade under attack by slave-trade abolitionists, and with the decline
of the trade itself. Racism, however took on a new form as a justification for
the ideology of Imperialism. This racism of Empire was dominant for over a
century from the 1840's on.
Authors such as Hannah Arendt, in her 1951 book The Origins of Totalitarianism, have said that
the racist ideology (popular racism) that developed at the end of the 19th
century helped legitimize the imperialist conquests of foreign territories
and the acts that accompanied them (such as the Herero and Namaqua
Genocide of 1904–1907 or the Armenian Genocide of
1915–1917).
Rudyard Kipling's poem The White Man's Burden (1899) is one of the more famous
illustrations of the belief in the inherent superiority of the European
culture over the rest of the world, though it is also thought to be a
satirical appraisal of such imperialism. Racist ideology thus helped legitimize
subjugation and the dismantling of the traditional societies of indigenous
peoples, which were regarded as humanitarian obligations as a result of these
racist beliefs. Concepts such as the ‘white man's burden’ became
fashionable especially in England where British Colonialists liked to cast
themselves as father and mother with a clear duty to take responsibility for
the material and spiritual well-being of their 'colonial' children. Racism
became the ideological justification of capitalism's expansion into conquering
countries, plundering their wealth and exploiting the natives.
The racial policy of the Nazis was a set of policies and
laws implemented by Nazi Germany, asserting the superiority of the "Aryan Race", and based on a
specific racist doctrine which claimed scientific legitimacy. It
was combined with a pogrom that aimed for racial hygiene by
using compulsory sterilizations and extermination of the Untermensch (or "sub-humans"), and which eventually culminated in
the Holocaust. These policies
targeted peoples, in particular Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and handicapped
people, who were labelled as "inferior" in a racial hierarchy that
placed the Herrenvolk (or "master race") of the Volksgemeinschaft (or
"national community") at the top, and ranked Russians,
Romani, persons of color and Jews at the bottom.
It was the Spaniards who gave the world the notion that an aristocrat's blood
is not red but blue. The Spanish nobility started taking shape around the ninth
century in classic military fashion, occupying land as warriors on horseback.
They were to continue the process for more than five hundred years, clawing
back sections of the peninsula from its Moorish occupiers, and a nobleman
demonstrated his pedigree by holding up his sword arm to display the filigree
of blue-blooded veins beneath his
pale skin—proof that his birth had not been contaminated by the dark-skinned
enemy. Sangre azul, blue blood, was thus a euphemism for being a
white man—Spain's own particular reminder that the refined footsteps of
the aristocracy through history carry the rather less refined spoor of racism.
Allegations that caste amounts to
race were addressed and rejected by B.R.
Ambedkar, an advocate for Dalit rights and critic of untouchability. He
wrote that "The Brahmin of Punjab is racially of the
same stock as the Chamar (Dalit) of Punjab, and that the "Caste system
does not demarcate racial division. Caste system is a social division of people
of the same race”.
Such allegations have also been
rejected by many sociologists such as Andre
Béteille, who writes that treating caste as a form of racism is
"politically mischievous" and worse, "scientifically
nonsense" since there is no discernible difference in the racial
characteristics between Brahmins and Scheduled Castes. He
writes that "Every social group cannot be regarded as a race simply
because we want to protect it against prejudice and
discrimination". In addition, the view of the caste system as
"static and unchanging" (which would indicate a form of racial
discrimination) has been disputed by many scholars. Sociologists describe how
the perception of the caste system as a static and textual stratification has
given way to the perception of the caste system as a more processual, empirical
and contextual stratification. Others have applied theoretical models to
explain mobility and flexibility in the caste system in India. According
to these scholars, groups of lower-caste individuals could seek to elevate the
status of their caste by attempting to emulate the practices of higher
castes. Sociologist M. N.
Srinivas has also debated the question of rigidity in Caste.
Yes, Friedrich Nietzsche is noted to have said "Close the
Bible and open the Manu Smriti. It
has an affirmation of life, a triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that
to draw up a law-book such as the Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper
hand, to become perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of
living."
Contra Nietzsche, Nipissing
University philosophy professor, W.A.
Borody has coined the phrase "sublimation-transmogrification
logic" to describe the underlying 'state of mind' lying behind the ethical
teaching of the Manu Smrti - a 'state
of mind' that would have found Nietzsche's concept of the Dionysian Übermensch abhorrent, and a 'state of
mind' or 'voice' that has always been radically contested within India's various
philosophical and religious traditions.
In fact, Joseph Goebbels stated
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as
the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military
consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use
all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the
lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the
State.” The critics seem to have taken a fancy to both Racism and this
Nazi precept. Parrot fashion, they kept repeating ill-founded and
deliberate colonial constructs to debunk and denounce Indian Civilization or
the Sanskrit Civilization as I have chosen to give a name to a historical
period of a millennium and a half, in India’s history. They wrongly try to
associate it with the priestly class, the Brahmins and their efforts at
stratifying the Indian society into the ugly reality of Caste and Jati.
MYTH OF ARYAN RACE
A construct that was foisted upon
Indian Civilization and history was “The Myth
of Aryan Invasion” that was created to make it appear that Indian culture
and philosophy was dependent on the previous developments in Europe, thereby
justifying the need for colonial rule and Christian expansion in India. This
myth remained unchallenged for almost a hundred years till the remains of an
urban civilization were found through the efforts of Sir John Marshall in 1920s in Harappa and Mohenjo-Daro. As
archaeologists started to demystify the haze surrounding these finds, the Aryan
invasion theory started getting deconstructed.
There can be no doubt that the Aryan
Invasion Theory was aptly put in the service of colonialism. During the
1935 British Parliament debates on the Government of India Act, Sir Winston Churchill opposed any policy
tending towards decolonization on the following ground: “We have as much
right to be in India as anyone there, except perhaps for the Depressed Classes
[the Scheduled Castes and Tribes], who are the native stock.” So, the
British Aryans had as much right to Aryavarta
as their Vedic fellow-Aryans. Indian loyalists justified the British presence
on the same grounds, e.g. Keshab Chandra
Sen, leader of the reformist movement Brahmo Samaj (mid-19th century),
welcomed the British advent as a reunion with his Aryan cousins: “In the advent
of the English nation in India we see a reunion of parted cousins, the
descendants of two different families of the ancient Aryan race.”
In the proliferating race theories of
the late 19th and early 20th century, “Aryan”, an early synonym of “Indo-European”, became a racial term
designating the purest segment of the White race. Of course, the
identification of “white” with “Aryan” was an innovation made by armchair
theorizers in Europe, far from and in stark disregard for the
self-described Aryas in India. Better-informed India based
Britons like Rudyard Kipling summed up the Indian type as “Aryan brown”.
Incorporated in the theme of Aryan
whiteness is the Aryan Invasion Theory, to which the critics refer to in the
following words: “It will be interesting to know what the proponents of this
caste-based philosophy (which is indeed “pluralistic” in a very peculiar sense
of the term) have to say about the treatment meted on to the majority
population of the Indian subcontinent – the native (non-Aryan, non-Sanskritic)
population, that is to say before the advent of Islam.” In fact, this theory
became a crown piece in Adolf Hitler’s
vision of white supremacy; here was the proof of both white superiority and
of the need to preserve the race from admixture with inferior darker
races. In the Nazi view, the Aryan invaders had retained a relative
superiority vis-à-vis the pure black natives by means of the caste system, but
had been too slow in instituting this early form of Apartheid, so that their
type was fatally contaminated with inferior blood.
This “Aryan” theme failed to kindle
any sympathy in Hitler for the brown Aryans of India. He spurned the
collaboration offer by freedom fighter and a “progressive Congress leader”
Subhash Chandra Bose because he preferred India to be under white British
domination. And he ordered the extermination of the Gypsies, Indian
immigrants into Europe. Nonetheless, anti-Hindu polemicists lose no
opportunity to cleverly exploit the ambiguity of the term “Aryan” to associate Hindus
with Hitler.
“Sri Aurobindo, did for one use the
term “Aryan race”, thereby not meaning what Hitler and post-Hitlerian readers
will understand by that term, but “Hindu nation”. For all his “Aryan
race” talk, Sri Aurobindo was among the most clear-sighted analysts of the
problem which Nazism posed. In 1939, Sri Aurobindo advocated India’s
total support to the Allied cause as a matter of principle, because he saw in
Hitler a force of evil; this at a time when many Indians, both Hindu and Muslim,
were very fond of Hitler, and when others advocated participation in the
British war effort on purely tactical grounds. On 19 September 1940, he briefly
broke his self-imposed seclusion to make a public statement: “We feel that not
only is this a battle waged in just self-defence and in defence of the nations
threatened with the world domination of Germany and the Nazi system of life,
but that it is a defence of civilization (…) To this cause our support and
sympathy will be unswerving whatever may happen; we look forward to the victory
of Britain and, as the eventual result, an era of peace and union among the
nations”.
On one occasion, already in 1914, Sri
Aurobindo did express his doubts about the term “race” as follows: “I
prefer not to use the term race, for race is a thing much more difficult
to determine than is usually imagined. In dealing with it the trenchant
distinctions current in the popular mind are wholly out of place.” At any rate,
when he and other Hindus used the expression “Aryan race”, they meant something
totally unrelated to Nazism, for both terms had a meaning totally distinct from
their Nazi interpretation. To quote Hindus as speaking of the “Aryan
race” without explaining the semantic itinerary of the expression is tantamount
to manipulating the readership into reading something into the phrase which the
Arya Samaj and Sri Aurobindo never intended. To Hindus, Arya, or
“Aryan” in English texts, simply means “Hindu, nothing more, nothing less”.
CASTE SYSTEM & PROSELYTIZATION
The critics’ comment that “The proselytization drive that was conducted by the various invading
Muslims much later in the time-depth was facilititated if not motivated by such
ugly and unfortunate social stratification where the caste Hindu continued to
be privileged throughout the history and continued to oppress the lower caste
and the non-caste (the out-caste). Any socio-politico historical changes that
led to the questioning of this privileged status was definitely not to be
well-taken,”, is again erroneous.
They must understand that a
considerable controversy exists both in scholarly and public opinion about the
conversions to Islam typically represented by different schools of
thought. Embedded within this lies the concept of Islam as a foreign
imposition and Hinduism being a natural condition of the natives who resisted,
resulting in the failure of the project to Islamicize the Indian
subcontinent and is highly embroiled within the politics of
the partition and communalism in India. An estimate
of the number of people killed, based on the Muslim chronicles and demographic
calculations was done by K.S. Lal in his book, Growth of Muslim
Population in Medieval India. He claimed that between 1000 CE and 1500
CE, the population of Hindus decreased by 80 million. His work has come
under criticism by historians such as Simon Digby (School of Oriental
and African Studies) and Irfan Habib for its agenda and lack of
accurate data in pre-census times. Lal has responded to these criticisms in his
later works. Historians such as Will Durant contend that Islam was
spread through violence. Sir Jadunath Sarkar contends that several
Muslim invaders were waging a systematic jihad against Hindus in
India to the effect that "Every device short of massacre in cold blood was
resorted to in order to convert heathen subjects." Hindus who
converted to Islam were not immune to persecution due to the Muslim Caste
System in India established by Ziauddin al-Barani in the Fatawa-i
Jahandari, where they were regarded as an "Ajlaf" caste and
subjected to discrimination by the "Ashraf" castes.
Not all Muslim invaders were simply
raiders. Later rulers fought on to win kingdoms and stayed to create new ruling
dynasties. The practices of these new rulers and their subsequent heirs (some
of whom were borne of Hindu wives) varied considerably. While some were
uniformly hated, others developed a popular following. According to the memoirs
of Ibn Batuta who travelled through Delhi in the 14th
century, one of the previous sultans had been especially brutal and was deeply
hated by Delhi's population, Batuta's memoirs also indicate that Muslims from
the Arab world, Persia and Anatolia were often favored with
important posts at the royal courts suggesting that locals may have played a
somewhat subordinate role in the Delhi administration. The term
"Turk" was commonly used to refer to their higher social status.
S.A.A. Rizvi (The Wonder That Was India – II), however points to Muhammad
bin Tughlaq as not only encouraging locals but promoting artisan groups
such as cooks, barbers and gardeners to high administrative posts. In his
reign, it is likely that conversions to Islam took place as a means of seeking
greater social mobility and improved social standing.
In our context, The Kashmiri
Pandits suffered vicissitudes and misfortune, when under the zeal of Islamic
fundamentalism the Sultans made it a state policy to effect forcible conversion
and implement it by issuing decrees to sever and chop off the limbs of the
Pandits, kidnap them, loot their possessions and imprison respectable people
on various concocted pretexts so as to pressurize them to change their faith
and become the followers of Islam, the religion of the rulers. The Kashmir
chronicles written during that period, especially two books written in Persian,
namely Baharistan-i-Shahi and Tohfaful Ahbab, are replete with descriptions,
references and narratives of mass forced conversions of Hindus in Kashmir under
the pain of death and destruction. In fact, it was references to these
chronicles written by Muslims Historians of the period under reference, which
lead to the angry outburst of the critic. And that the entire Kashmir was
converted to Islam and only the proverbial eleven Hindu household survived; and
the narrative remains eternally etched to the memories of all Kashmiris, is no
tribute to the “ugly reality of caste and Jati” and there is no truth that “The
proselytization drive that was conducted by the various invading Muslims much
later in the time-depth was facilititated if not motivated by such ugly and
unfortunate social stratification”; because there was no such ugly social
stratification in Kashmir. The conversions were part of the zeal of the
Muslim Sultans and the Islamic clergy, including the Sufis, who were guided by
an Islamist ideology.
There is a general agreement on the
point that the Chaks came to Kashmir from the land of Dardistan of Gilgit-Hunza
Region. Ferocious, rugged and wild by nature they possessed great physical
powers. When Shah Mir founded the Sultanate in Kashmir he found them the most
suitable to be recruited to his armed forces. This brought them into great
prominence.The Chaks belonged to the Shia sect of the Muslims, like all other
earlier Muslim rulers they also adopted their policy of conversion by coercion,
loot, plunder arson and butchering of Kashmiri Pandits, who as a result of
continual religious persecution became considerably reduced in number. There
was no let up in religious crusade against them either to force them to get
converted or face liquidation.
I
don’t believe that the critics are ignorant about all these facts that I have
brought to their notice.
And
yet this is how she sums up her argument with the following:
Finally,
a brief response to the last statement “PANUN KASHMIR as a territory for all
those who believe in the Indian Constitution, who respect plural ethos and who
don’t discriminate among mankind, who have an abiding faith in EQUALITY”.
My question is: Is Indian constitution something like the sacred scriptures of
the “Sanskrit” language and civilization which cannot be subject to any change
or variation in the future? I will not comment on the “abiding faith in
EQUALITY” because I have already talked about that in the preceding sections.
This is indeed amazing. I don’t understand what problem does the
critic have “with all those who believe in the Indian Constitution, who respect
plural ethos and who don’t discriminate among mankind, who have an abiding
faith in EQUALITY” Is it wrong in her
opinion to respect one’s country’s constitution and to respect plural
ethos? Should one not have an abiding
faith in the equality of all human beings and should we not shun
discrimination, of all sorts?
Well, may be for these Kashmiri
compatriots (the critics and their ilk) the Constitution of India is not
sacrosanct and a sacred document, but for us, all those who have a faith in
Indian ethos and pride in our Indian-ness, we do look with extreme respect
towards the Constitution of India. For
the information of the critics, the Constitution of India has already been
amended 94 times, with the last two amendments affected on 20th
January and 12th June, 2006.
Amendments to the Constitution are a constitutional and legal provision;
would that entail that it is not to be respected? And where does our critic
bring about the issue of its being sacrosanct (that can’t be altered because it
commands a great respect). Do I talk about that? Having an abiding faith in a
document that provides the guiding principles of the citizen’s conduct as well
as the provisions within which organs of the State function should be a matter
of utmost responsibility for the citizens. Does she mean that since it’s not
sacrosanct like the Vedas, the Bible and the Koran, it needs not be respected
and upheld? In fact, over a period of time, the Vedas did go through a change
in their conceptual frame-work as well as in their interpretations, as the
Upanishadas and the Brahmanas would bear a testimony; so did happen with Bible
and even the Holy Koran has differing interpretations. There is nothing in the
world that is sacrosanct since life is a dynamic phenomenon. Yet probity demands
that all citizens of India should have an abiding faith and show respect
towards the Constitution of India and the National Flag. Disrespect to the Constitution of India and
the National Flag is covered under the Prevention
of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 that reads: “Whoever in any public
place or in any other place within public view burns, mutilates, defaces,
defiles, disfigures, destroys, tramples upon or otherwise shows disrespect to
or brings into contempt (whether by words, either spoken or written, or by
acts) the Indian
National Flag or
the Constitution of India or any part thereof, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with
both”.
My question is why should the critics at
all express such an attitude towards the Constitution of India or towards those
who have an abiding faith in their Indian-ness? They may be one with separatist
aspirations and political ambition of secession from the Indian polity. They may lobby, work, and strive in the
direction of a political liberation from India. They may also strive to bring
about some revolutionary changes. That may be their position, and I neither grudge
that nor do I intend to denounce their aspirations, as long as they strive
within a legitimate constitutional frame-work.
But how can they be allowed to go unchallenged for distorting history
and misinterpreting the scope and import of Sanskrit literature, tradition, and
civilization in the garb of a historic linguist, just because these are objects
of Indian heritage and Hindu pride. Why is she so derisive of Hindu heritage?
Why is she so intolerant and intemperate of Kashmiri Pandits’ claim to pluralism?
Only because she must justify the obvious communal obscurantist clamouring of
Kashmir’s majority by parading a parallel communal/obscurantist belief system
and practices, even if an imagined one, of the Hindus, that she should indulge
in these diatribes. And that is why it became important to make a comprehensive
and exhaustive reply to her.
In the end I am compelled to state that
the critics should not have been denunciatory of a document which talks about pluralism
and peaceful co-existence. Just because
my note talks about a Hindu view, so it had to be confronted and shown in a bad
light. Is Hindu view in itself such a bad thing? In fact, among a section of
our society, there does exist a tendency to denounce every thing that to them
is not secular. They also have a very
narrow and constricted understanding of the term “Hindu”. Yet it is expected of a person who is a
historicist and a linguist to show this basic understanding and not to
repudiate “Hindu” to the narrow confines of a sect or a religion. It is a wider term since it has a
civilizational, geographical, philosophical and phenomenological import. And
even if one believes only in the narrow minded definition of Hindu as a creed
or religion, the Supreme Court ruling of the case, “Bramchari
Sidheswar Shai and others Versus State of West Bengal”, provides the definition
of a Hindu. Here I reproduce the relevant portion of the ruling, which defines
the characteristics of a “Hindu”:
“The Court
Identifies Seven Defining Characteristics of Hinduism and by extension Hindus:
- Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as
the highest authority in religious and philosophic matters and acceptance with
reverence of Vedas by Hindu thinkers and philosophers as the sole foundation of
Hindu philosophy.
- Spirit of tolerance and willingness to
understand and appreciate the opponent’s point of view based on the realization
that truth was many-sided.
- Acceptance of great world rhythm, vast
period of creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless succession,
by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.
- Acceptance by all systems of Hindu
philosophy the belief in rebirth and pre-existence.
- Recognition of the fact that the means or
ways to salvation are many.
- Realization of the truth that God is to
be worshipped may be large, yet there being Hindus who do not believe in the
worshipping of idols.
- Unlike other religions or religious
creeds Hindu religion is not being tied-down to any definite set of philosophic
concepts, as such”.
Why
doesn’t the Court recognize caste-system as a tenet of Hinduism? This was one
such ground on which the Ramkrishna Mission had asked the court to recognize
the Mattha as a separate religion.
Panun
Kashmir as an organization of Internally Displaced and ethnically cleansed
Kashmiri Hindus, draws its ideology and precepts from the Hindu philosophical
and civilizational context. And as long as it is tolerant of others and
pluralistic in character, it may any time be better than a secular ideology,
which is neither tolerant nor accommodative, but rather derisive of any
spiritual/theological strains. It is in fact the Hindus who have consistently
through millennia demonstrated their tolerance for other faiths and greater
ability to co-exist. Yes, we the Hindus are not believers in proselytization
and don’t believe in discrimination. Why should the critics have a problem with
that?
In
fact, my note “Panun Kashmir and Pluralism” was meant for such Kashmiri Hindu
youth, who were not comfortable with the idea of a pluralistic Panun Kashmir;
who didn’t like the idea of co-existing with Muslims of Kashmir in the
envisaged territory of Panun Kashmir. A
protracted discussion followed and my Note, “Panun Kashmir & Pluralism”
evolved out of some on line and off line comments on the issue of separate Homeland,
which I collated together to bring out this note. Shouldn’t Panun Kashmir reach
out to its constituency and explain its position viz. a viz. its geo-political
ambitions and its agenda? Shouldn’t it propagate an ideology of peaceful
co-existence and pluralism? Shouldn’t it posit an abiding faith in the
Constitution of India? And shouldn’t it clarify doubts if any?
AND
I am thankful to friends who raised doubts, critiqued it, condemned and
denounced my Note as a flawed document. Because it has provided us opportunity
and space to put forth our point of view; and explain and elaborate on the
basic premises of “Sanskrit, Sanskriti and Sanskrit Himalayas”, in the process
of rebutting the condemnation and denunciation of Panun Kashmir and Pluralism.
Some Yuppies indulging on the FB and brandishing themselves as game changers and moderate Samaritans, have taken upon themselves the Kashmiri cause. Nothing strange then that their attempts aim to yuppify Kashmir and its society. They create an impression that their wishful imagination and plans about the valley auger well for its future and point to a renaissance that is on the anvil. They draw their conclusions and rationalizations on the following basis of what HAS and what HASN'T changed over the last 20 years in Kashmir:
