From: govindan menon <tcgmenon@hotmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 5:10 PM
Subject: RE: [vishwa_samvad] Ten falsehoods in HAF-baked Caste report. Hindu samajam demands explanations from HAF.
To: vishwa_samvad@yahoogroups.com
Every Evangelist write about caste system but no one is able to furnish the number of people who suffered in any one particular period. I again repeat the entire fault lies with the Muslims and the British(Christians). During British period with the setting up of Army cantonment, Railways and Municipalities a large number of people were required to do the dirtiest job on a regular basis. If they were really interested in improving the condition of the less fortunate Indians, they should have switched over to septic tanks . Septic tank system was invented by John Mouras and Louis Moureas in 1860. The Muslims and British converted the Shudras to scavengers during their rule. Conversion to septic tank system was started after Independence. But British did not do anything to improve their condition. Their only interest was to loot/exploit the country. The real work to improve their condition started after 1961 census. About 8 ,02,400 people were found to be working as scavengers of whom 3,68,727 were Scheduled caste constituting 48.2%of the total work force and remaining 51.8% were non- schedule castes, such as converted Muslims and Christians. Can anybody prove that the number of people suffered due to cast system is more than the worst genocides of the 20th century. The two desert religions and communists are responsible for all the genocides. So both the desert religions and the communist have no right to talk about Hinduism. We should throw the HAF report in the Ganges.
Tcg
| The arrest of Pinochet in 2000 brings up the issue of which other leaders should be or should have been tried for atrocities committed during their rule. Here is a tentative list of modern dictators (and assorted mass murderers) and the estimated number of people killed by their orders (excluding armies they were formally at war with). In Stalin’s and Mao’s cases, one has to decide how to consider the millions who died indirectly because of their political decisions. The Chinese cultural revolution caused the death of 30 million people (source: the current Chinese government), but many died of hunger. Stalin is responsible for the death of 17 million Russians, but only half a million were killed by his order. Khomeini sent children to die in the war against Iraq, but it was a war, so they are not counted here. The worst genocide of recent times was committed by many hutus, not just by their leader. Needless to say, I make a big distinction between killing soldiers and killing civilians. Read the bottom of this page for frequently asked questions on controversial actions such as the atomic bombs, the Iraqi war, etc.
See also Wars and Casualties of the 20th Century. |
The worst genocides of the 20th Century
| Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) | 49-78,000,000 |
| Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) | 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine’s famine) |
| Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) | 12,000,000 (concentration camps and civilians WWII) |
| Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) | 8,000,000 |
| Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) | 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII) |
| Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) | 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20) |
| Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) | 1,700,000 |
| Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) | 1.6 million (purges and concentration camps) |
| Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78) | 1,500,000 |
| Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970) | 1,000,000 |
| Leonid Brezhnev (Afghanistan, 1979-1982) | 900,000 |
| Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994) | 800,000 |
| Suharto (East Timor, West Papua, Communists, 1966-98) | 800,000 |
| Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88) | 600,000 |
| Tito (Yugoslavia, 1945-1987) | 570,000 |
| Fumimaro Konoe (Japan, 1937-39) | 500,000? (Chinese civilians) |
| Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002) | 400,000 |
| Mullah Omar – Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001) | 400,000 |
| Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979) | 300,000 |
| Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71) | 300,000 (Bangladesh) |
| Benito Mussolini (Ethiopia, 1936; Libya, 1934-45; Yugoslavia, WWII) | 300,000 |
| Mobutu Sese Seko (Zaire, 1965-97) | ? |
| Charles Taylor (Liberia, 1989-1996) | 220,000 |
| Foday Sankoh (Sierra Leone, 1991-2000) | 200,000 |
| Michel Micombero (Burundi, 1972) | 150,000 |
| Slobodan Milosevic (Yugoslavia, 1992-99) | 100,000 |
| Hassan Turabi (Sudan, 1989-1999) | 100,000 |
| Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Centrafrica, 1966-79) | ? |
| Richard Nixon (Vietnam, 1969-1974) | 70,000 (Vietnamese and Cambodian civilians) |
| Efrain Rios Montt (Guatemala, 1982-83) | 70,000 |
| Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiti, 1957-71) | 60,000 |
| Hissene Habre (Chad, 1982-1990) | 40,000 |
| Chiang Kai-shek (Taiwan, 1947) | 30,000 (popular uprising) |
| Vladimir Ilich Lenin (USSR, 1917-20) | 30,000 (dissidents executed) |
| Francisco Franco (Spain) | 30,000 (dissidents executed after the civil war) |
| Fidel Castro (Cuba, 1959-1999) | 30,000 |
| Lyndon Johnson (Vietnam, 1963-1968) | 30,000 |
| Hafez Al-Assad (Syria, 1980-2000) | 25,000 |
| Khomeini (Iran, 1979-89) | 20,000 |
| Robert Mugabe (Zimbabwe, 1982-87, Ndebele minority) | 20,000 |
| Rafael Videla (Argentina, 1976-83) | 13,000 |
| Guy Mollet (France, 1956-1957) | 10,000 (war in Algeria) |
| Harold McMillans (Britain, 1952-56, Kenya’s Mau-Mau rebellion) | 10,000 |
| Paul Koroma (Sierra Leone, 1997) | 6,000 |
| Osama Bin Laden (worldwide, 1993-2001) | 3,500 |
| Augusto Pinochet (Chile, 1973) | 3,000 |
| Al Zarqawi (Iraq, 2004-06) | 2,000 |
160 million people died in wars during the 20th century
(See also 1900: A century of genocides)
TM, ®, Copyright © 2009 Piero Scaruffi All rights reserved.
1860-65: American civil war (360,000)
1886-1908: Belgium-Congo Free State (8 million)
1899-02: British-Boer war (100,000)
1899-03: Colombian civil war (120,000)
1899-02: Philippines vs USA (20,000)
1900-01: Boxer rebels against Russia, Britain, France, Japan, USA against rebels (35,000)
1903: Ottomans vs Macedonian rebels (20,000)
1904: Germany vs Namibia (65,000)
1904-05: Japan vs Russia (150,000)
1910-20: Mexican revolution (250,000)
1911: Chinese Revolution (2.4 million)
1911-12: Italian-Ottoman war (20,000)
1912-13: Balkan wars (150,000)
1915: the Ottoman empire slaughters Armenians (1.2 million)
1915-20: the Ottoman empire slaughters 500,000 Assyrians
1916-23: the Ottoman empire slaughters 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks
1914-18: World War I (20 million)
1916: Kyrgyz revolt against Russia (120,000)
1917-21: Soviet revolution (5 million)
1917-19: Greece vs Turkey (45,000)
1919-21: Poland vs Soviet Union (27,000)
1928-37: Chinese civil war (2 million)
1931: Japanese Manchurian War (1.1 million)
1932-33: Soviet Union vs Ukraine (10 million)
1934: Mao’s Long March (170,000)
1936: Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia (200,000)
1936-37: Stalin’s purges (13 million)
1936-39: Spanish civil war (600,000)
1937-45: Japanese invasion of China (500,000)
1939-45: World War II (55 million) including holocaust and Chinese revolution
1946-49: Chinese civil war (1.2 million)
1946-49: Greek civil war (50,000)
1946-54: France-Vietnam war (600,000)
1947: Partition of India and Pakistan (1 million)
1947: Taiwan’s uprising against the Kuomintang (30,000)
1948-1958: Colombian civil war (250,000)
1948-1973: Arab-Israeli wars (70,000)
1949-: Indian Muslims vs Hindus (20,000)
1949-50: Mainland China vs Tibet (1,200,000)
1950-53: Korean war (3 million)
1952-59: Kenya’s Mau Mau insurrection (20,000)
1954-62: French-Algerian war (368,000)
1958-61: Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” (38 million)
1960-90: South Africa vs Africa National Congress (?)
1960-96: Guatemala’s civil war (200,000)
1961-98: Indonesia vs West Papua/Irian (100,000)
1961-2003: Kurds vs Iraq (180,000)
1962-75: Mozambique Frelimo vs Portugal (?)
1964-73: USA-Vietnam war (3 million)
1965: second India-Pakistan war over Kashmir
1965-66: Indonesian civil war (250,000)
1966-69: Mao’s “Cultural Revolution” (11 million)
1966-: Colombia’s civil war (31,000)
1967-70: Nigeria-Biafra civil war (800,000)
1968-80: Rhodesia’s civil war (?)
1969-: Philippines vs New People’s Army (40,000)
1969-79: Idi Amin, Uganda (300,000)
1969-02: IRA – Norther Ireland’s civil war (2,000)
1969-79: Francisco Macias Nguema, Equatorial Guinea (50,000)
1971: Pakistan-Bangladesh civil war (500,000)
1972-: Philippines vs Muslim separatists (Moro Islamic Liberation Front, etc) (120,000)
1972: Burundi’s civil war (300,000)
1972-79: Rhodesia/Zimbabwe’s civil war (30,000)
1974-91: Ethiopian civil war (1,000,000)
1975-78: Menghitsu, Ethiopia (1.5 million)
1975-79: Khmer Rouge, Cambodia (1.7 million)
1975-89: Boat people, Vietnam (250,000)
1975-90: civil war in Lebanon (40,000)
1975-87: Laos’ civil war (184,000)
1975-2002: Angolan civil war (500,000)
1976-83: Argentina’s military regime (20,000)
1976-93: Mozambique’s civil war (900,000)
1976-98: Indonesia-East Timor civil war (600,000)
1976-2005: Indonesia-Aceh (GAM) civil war (12,000)
1977-92: El Salvador’s civil war (75,000)
1979: Vietnam-China war (30,000)
1979-88: the Soviet Union invades Afghanistan (1.3 million)
1980-88: Iraq-Iran war (1 million)
1980-92: Sendero Luminoso – Peru’s civil war (69,000)
1980-99: Kurds vs Turkey (35,000)
1981-90: Nicaragua vs Contras (60,000)
1982-90: Hissene Habre, Chad (40,000)
1983-: Sri Lanka’s civil war (70,000)
1983-2002: Sudanese civil war (2 million)
1986-: Indian Kashmir’s civil war (60,000)
1987-: Palestinian Intifada (4,500)
1988-2001: Afghanistan civil war (400,000)
1988-2004: Somalia’s civil war (550,000)
1989-: Liberian civil war (220,000)
1989-: Uganda vs Lord’s Resistance Army (30,000)
1991: Gulf War – large coalition against Iraq to liberate Kuwait (85,000)
1991-97: Congo’s civil war (800,000)
1991-2000: Sierra Leone’s civil war (200,000)
1991-2009: Russia-Chechnya civil war (200,000)
1991-94: Armenia-Azerbaijan war (35,000)
1992-96: Tajikstan’s civil war war (50,000)
1992-96: Yugoslavian wars (260,000)
1992-99: Algerian civil war (150,000)
1993-97: Congo Brazzaville’s civil war (100,000)
1993-2005: Burundi’s civil war (200,000)
1994: Rwanda’s civil war (900,000)
1995-: Pakistani Sunnis vs Shiites (1,300)
1995-: Maoist rebellion in Nepal (12,000)
1998-: Congo/Zaire’s war – Rwanda and Uganda vs Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia (3.8 million)
1998-2000: Ethiopia-Eritrea war (75,000)
1999: Kosovo’s liberation war – NATO vs Serbia (2,000)
2001-: Afghanistan’s liberation war – USA & UK vs Taliban (40,000)
2002-: Cote d’Ivoire’s civil war (1,000)
2003: Second Iraq-USA war – USA, UK and Australia vs Saddam Hussein (14,000)
2003-09: Sudan vs JEM/Darfur (300,000)
2003-: Iraq’s civil war (60,000)
2004-: Sudan vs SPLM & Eritrea (?)
2004-: Yemen vs Shiite Muslims (?)
2004-: Thailand vs Muslim separatists (3,700)
Arab-Israeli wars
· I (1947-49): 6,373 Israeli and 15,000 Arabs die
· II (1956): 231 Israeli and 3,000 Egyptians die
· III (1967): 776 Israeli and 20,000 Arabs die
· IV (1973): 2,688 Israeli and 18,000 Arabs die
· Intifada I (1987-92): 170 Israelis and 1,000 Palestinians
· Intifada II (2000-03): 700 Israelis and 2,000 Palestinians
· Israel-Hamas war (2008): 1,300 Palestinians
Tcg
Date: Sat, 8 Jan 2011 09:28:18 +0530
From: kalyan97@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:45:21 +0530
Subject: [vishwa_samvad] Ten falsehoods in HAF-baked Caste report. Hindu samajam demands explanations from HAF.
HAF has yet to answer the Hindu samajam: Why this report? Why now?
Why hasn’t HRC of HAF quit yet after claiming race/color to be part of Ramayana narrative?
Why hasn’t MD of HAF quit yet after disrespecting Hindu Swamiji-s?
Why hasn’t HAF disbanded yet after acting against Hindu interests?
HAF will have to face the consequences for denigrating Hindu samajam.
kalyanaraman
There was no jaati on a yatra, not on a pilgrimage: Dharampal
Mayank Shekhar talks about the caste system and its origins in modern Indian history
Around 1960, Dharampal was traveling in train from Gwaliar to Delhi. He came across a group of people from two villages on teertha, pilgrimage, who had gone from near Luckhnow to Ramehswaram. Dharampal narrates in his works an experience he had through this interaction in the train.
“I said they must all be from one jati, from a single caste group. They said, ‘No, no! We are not from one jati—we are from several jatis.’ I said, how could that be? They said that there was no jati on a yatra—not on a pilgrimage. I didn’t know that.”
The so called caste lines that we all were told and believe as facts were not so. Dharampal, a 38 year old Gandhian then, admits he didn’t know. The small interaction threw the Gandhian into introspection. Where did we acquire this idea of caste based society? The ways of the society certainly was not the perspective of those who spoke for and about the Indian society. It was not even in the perspective of those who took the mantle to govern India after transfer of power from the British. During the interaction in train that lasted over 6 to 7 hours, Dharampal also enquired if they would go to see Delhi, the capital of the free India. Their negative response left Dharampal wondering.
“Those people on their pilgrimage were not interested in any of this. And they were representative of India. More representative of India than Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru ever was. Or I and most of us could ever be.”
Dharampal describes this experience of his as
“I think in a way that meeting gave me a view of India, the larger India.”
The characteristics of a caste system, in its origin in the West, do not reflect in the ways of people of India or the Hindu society. The caste system in the West is a social stratification based on inheritance, endogamy, economic and political power. These were of the clergy, the rulers, and the commoner. Inheritance and endogamy were important elements of the caste system. In practice this lead to segregation and access to rights (consumption, occupational and ceremonial). In John Locke’s words, West was barbarian. What we know of India, its society and systems today, is what Westerners described of it. Their description was not a factual account of India. In Prof. Balagangadhar’s words, “Indians took to this way of talking about themselves the way ducks take to water.”
It is a little known fact that until the seventeenth century European traveler’s records from India reported a highly educated and productive Indian society. Together with China, India produced 73% of the world’s industrial production in 1750. While education was accessible only to the privileged in the eighteenth century England, India had an elaborate system of education. Drawing attention to civility amongst Indians and Indian education, John Locke attributed this barbarianism (in the West) to lack of education. These facts are not found in the textbooks.
The acquired knowledge of caste system is invariably accompanied with the stories around water wells, physical beatings, denial of access to temples and untouchability. One can certainly leave the emotional pitch found in these stories aside. The Christian missionaries and travelers who landed in India saw the so-called caste system and described their observations as such, but, there is no mention of any of the horror stories. While Prof. Balagangadhar argues that the characteristics of the western caste system is absent from the Indian society, he also asserts that jaati is not an equivalent of caste. A research group from Kuvempu University is studying the phenomenon and has collected useful data. Though the Kuvempu University research is ongoing, it is able to draw our attention to some interesting facts. For example, they do not find any evidence of an ideology for Jaatis. Even the idea of endogamy exists only on paper far removed from practice. Jaatis allow marriage across jaatis for several reasons including survival of a jaati, and uniting different jaatis belonging to the same cluster.
Inheritance is also not found as a necessary constituent of jaati. Jaatis have ceremonial practices to include a new member. Food habits and social practices vary by climate. Prohibitions are not universal for a jaati and are limited to climate or regions. Practices change with time. These reflect upon the adaptability of the practices. Another critical finding of this research is absence of textual authority. Neither the people themselves, nor the jaati swamis, purohits nor Sanskrit scholars use text to support the aspects or practices of Jaati, except, on some occasions by Brahmins in performing a ceremony when there is a dispute. The word Dharma is used for good actions, respecting one’s elders, hospitality, doing pooja etc. Purohits and Sanskrit scholars do not refer to Dharmashastra texts or Varnadharma for Dharma.
In Sanskrit texts, as we know, Dharma is used for duties, moral and ethical values, right-wrong, righteous-unrighteous, doable-not-doable actions and niti. Words Dharma, adharma, karya and akarya are used by different writers to mean good and bad, doable and not-doable actions. Balagangadhar Tilak points out that the words niti and dharma have been used interchangeably in Sanskrit texts. They used Dharma pravachan, an exposition of Dharma, instead of niti pravachan. Niti or Niti Shashtra is concerned with the regal jurisprudence (rajniti). Dharma is used in this sense to define duties. Manu defines Dharma for each of the varnas, where each of the duties was important to sustain a society. When one varna becomes extinct, then some other persons will have to take that labor otherwise society will become a ship without a rudder. The writers of the Sanskrit text recognize the fact that good and bad, and right or wrong are subjective to circumstances. There are numerous examples in the Sanskrit text where actions normally considered wrong or not righteous are allowed in calamities and other circumstances. Bottom line is that morals, ethics, truthfulness etc. do not provide answers to all situations and writers of the Sanskrit texts were well aware of the exceptions. Same is true for common laws and is recognized by the writers. In other words, answer provided by religion is not sufficient. Unlike in the west where laws and justice were applied depending upon the status of the concerned, both wealth (artha) and desire (kama) can be acquired through Dharma. In this sense Dharma can be looked upon as the equivalent of morals of the western philosophers. Dharma is neither about Ishwara, Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti nor about their desire or designs. Hindus, even then, do not loose site of atma-kalyana and moksha. Dharma as it becomes obvious is used in different senses and is not an equivalent of religion, short of recommending raj religion, kula religion, religion of upholding, of right actions, of wrong actions and so on.
Balagangadhar Tilak supporting his demand for Swaraj argued that we need our own schools, our own systems and our own government. Until then we would just be implementing and perpetuating the colonial designs. He would not compromise for anything less; the state of affairs was amply clear to Tilak and Lala Lajpat Rai. When Swaraj was put to vote in the Nagpur session of congress it got overwhelming votes against the wishes of Mahatma Gandhi. Coming out of this session, Mahatma Gandhi expressed that he will not return to congress ever again. By this time he had decided to move back from South Africa to India. He was visiting India to evaluate and identify a suitable place for his ashrama and was invited to the national session of the congress by Lala Lajpat Rai.
Dharampal deliberates on the Indian Chitta, Manas and Kaala in his collected writings. He points out that we do not know our people and we do not know our systems. The alienation of the leaders from the larger India is unfortunate. The actions of the leaders, and thus the policies and programs, had very little to do with the larger India. If anything, it had to do with the legacy of the colonials and continuance of the colonial institutions and systems, which replaced the once successful indigenous systems. According to Prof. Balagangadhar, this is a result of the colonial consciousness. For this very reason the Panchayti Raj instituted by the constitution did not work, while the Bees Biswa and the Sasana village systems still worked. It is interesting to note that the version of the Panchayati Raj introduced in the constitution was different from the deliberations on the Panchayati Raj from 1930s until the transfer of power. Questions were raised in the constituent assembly to address these. These, however, could not be addressed giving lack of time in the constituent assembly as the reason. Unfortunately, the larger India and its working systems were left aside replaced by a hurriedly put together system. Dharampal, reflecting on the chitta and manas, suggests that Mahatma Gandhi was in the process of arising larger India’s chitta, and by this time, it was too late for he did not live too long.
Until cautioned by Dharampal’s writings and of Colonial Consciousness in the researches of Prof S.N. Balagangadhara, Ghent University, Belgium, one takes the Western perspective and looks at its own people and its systems just as the Westerner did. The social stratification in the caste system is the characteristics of the European societies. It is debilitating to associate caste system to the Hindu society of pre-colonial period. Colonization has disconnected its people from its own systems, tradition, culture and past. “Colonialism” according to Prof Balagangadhar, “alters the way we look at the world and it displaces native ways of experiencing the world through sheer violence.”
“In the colonized field that the Indian mind had become, many Indians set up tents to sell their merchandise: an attack on the Indian caste system; an instant mixture of reform that could cure the ills of the Indian ‘religions’; tracts and books that told tales of the tyranny of the Brahmin ‘priests’; and, of course, the sale of the seductive siren songs of modernization and progress.”
Contrary to the Christian claim of universality of religion, religion is not practiced by all human beings nor do all societies have religion. Dogmas and beliefs could be found in any society, however, in tradition these are not institutionalized as a religion. Hinduism is a way of life transmitted from generation to generation. The practices vary depending upon region, climate, time and age, chitta, bhuddhi and manas. Just as acquiring knowledge is a building block process, one’s experience (anubhava) takes one to the next step of jnana. Reasoning helps after one has the anubhava and applies bhuddhi to differentiate. Once one becomes aware of the colonial consciousness the next steps for a Hindu come naturally.
See also: https://sites.google.com/site/hafcastereport/
Ten key flaws with the HAF Caste report
| Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste – The Ten Key Points | Fact Check of Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste –
The Ten Key Points |
| The key message of this report is that caste-based discrimination is not intrinsic to Hinduism, and that the solution lies within the eternal teachings of Hinduism. | FALSE: HAF is undermining the point that solutions should come from eternal teachings of Hinduism by introducing an error-filled report, produced without the right AdhikAra or dharmic process, that will be used by anti-Hindu forces to further their ends. HAF Report calls for re-analysis and rejection of Hindu scriptures and teachings arbitrarily creating a divide between authentic Hindu teachings and those that HAF claims promote “discrimination” Such “reanalysis” of sacred Hindu scriptures cannot be undertaken by a political advocacy organization without the involvement of those knowledgeable about the subject, including AchAryas and swamijis. Srimad Bhagavatham clearly states reinterpretation of smritis has to be done by qualified AchAryas and swamijis. The process and methodology by which the HAF report was produced directly contradicts the first key point that solution lies within the eternal teachings of Hinduism. |
| The report acknowledges that caste-based discrimination is a complex ongoing problem in India that is distorted by political maneuvering. | FALSE: By calling caste a “uniquely Hindu problem” and calling for the “rejection” of certain texts that allegedly promote caste-based discrimination, the HAF Report places the onus of these social ills on Hinduism itself. Indeed, the HAF Report has itself caused dissensions and political maneuvering in the Hindu community because it has not been produced in the right dharmic way. Some of the report reviewers have withdrawn their participation and have criticized the Report. The Report continues to hurt the Hindu causes. |
| HAF believes that caste-based discrimination in India is a domestic issue that should only be handled by the Government of India, and that the U.S. Congress, United Nations or any non-Hindu foreign body has no locus standi to interfere in this matter. | FALSE: Whatever HAF may say as CYA language in the report, anti-Hindu forces will use the HAF report to undermine Hindu causes in international forums. Already the report is being bandied about on Christian missionary and Islamic web sites. By acknowledging caste issue as a human rights issue (a notion that was opposed by even the secular Indian government), HAF opens door for possible UN Human Right Council’s sanctions and other interference from the UN.. |
| HAF fully acknowledges that there have been and are on-the-ground efforts by Hindus in India to eradicate caste-based discrimination.
|
FALSE: HAF does not acknowledge the positive impacts of affirmative action in India one such example is that 2 out of 12 Presidents of India are from the so called “lower caste” of HAF report. If the efforts are being made in India, then what is purpose of HAF report now? Also, while the report spends pages and pages listing incidents of alleged caste-based discrimination, it does not give due attention to the grassroots work being done by many Hindu organizations and leaders—an odd oversight for a purported Hindu advocacy organization that claims to be providing a Hindu perspective in this report! |
| This report is a tool to counter countless school textbooks that represent caste as a rigid and hierarchical system that is inseparable from Hinduism.
|
False: At numerous places the report has equated caste as birth-based and hierarchical which is what is taught in textbooks, one such example: “The caste system, as it has developed in the Indian subcontinent, is a birth-based hierarchy”. Page 12 |
| “Caste” is derived from the Portuguese word “casta” and is not equivalent to the varna/jaati tradition in Indian society; HAF is NOT suggesting an end to the varna/jaati tradition, but an end to caste-based discrimination and birth-based hierarchy. | FALSE: Throughout report HAF has conflated Varna with caste, one such example is “Since members of all the four castes are the children of God, they all belong to the same caste” page 143. |
| HAF acknowledges the substantial role played by the British colonial regime in solidifying a rigid caste system in Indian society. | FALSE: The HAF report is likely to rigidify the caste mindset of the Western world further, as this report has brought a receding problem to the fore for no apparent reason in the United States. It is suspected to be used by US Congress and UN Human Rights Council to interfere in Indian and Hindu affairs. |
| Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste presents “a” Hindu perspective on caste-based discrimination, not “the” only Hindu perspective. | FALSE: One false perspective improperly produced by a Hindu Advocacy Organization that has presence in mainstream media and contacts with the US Congress will cause major harm to the Hindu causes. |
| Prior to its release, this report was peer reviewed by approximately a dozen external reviewers, whose suggestions may or may not have been incorporated | FALSE: Some of the reviewers have withdrawn from and severely condemned the process and the Report because HAF told them that only cosmetic edits and no significant substantive changes would be accepted.
HAF’s Human Rights Coordinator has openly described the Ramayana as a racist narrative.
The process has been opaque with no disclosure of who these “reviewers” were and which comments were rejected and why. This statement ignores the criticism by 100+ scholars at World Association of Vedic Studies (WAVES; an academic body with high reputation) Conference in August 2010. HAF also refuses to participate in the WAVES Conference being organized on this topic. |
| The statements by 13 religious leaders and organizations are not endorsements of HAF’s report, but rather statements against caste-based discrimination provided to HAF prior to their review of the report. Some of these same respected leaders have endorsed the report after its release.
|
FALSE: No major Hindu religious leader has endorsed the report. But the following leaders have asked HAF to withdraw the report:
Swamiji Dayananda Saraswati (Convenor of the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha, who was listed as one of the endorsees of the Report), Dr. Pranav Pandya (Head of All World Gayatri Pariwar), Sri Puthige Swamiji of Udupi, and Swamiji Ramdev. Pujya Pejavar Swamiji (another one of the heads of the Udupi Matha,) has also expressed displeasure about the HAF report. |
Major Issues with the HAF Caste Report
| This website contains information about the major issues with the Hindu American Foundation’s recent report on caste and the negative responses the report has received from the community.
Summary of Major Issues with the HAF Report on Caste Contents
Executive Summary Many Hindu community activists and intellectuals are dismayed and appalled at the damage being caused by this report to Hindu interests. The main issues with the report are as follows:
http://www1.umassd.edu/indic/waves-2010-finalprogramschedule-v.11.pdf
· http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2010/12/rajiv-malhotra-on-haf-caste-report.html · http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-reject-haf-report-not-representing.html · http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1561
http://medhajournal.com/indian-news/1070-swami-ramdevs-open-letter-to-haf.html http://medhajournal.com/indian-news/1071-gayatri-parivars-open-letter-to-haf.html http://medhajournal.com/indian-news/1073-swami-dayananda-saraswatis-open-letter-to-haf.html http://medhajournal.com/indian-news/1072-puttige-maths-open-letter-to-haf.html
The Political Implications of the Report The report will:
Substantive Flaws in the Contents of the Report
What now?
|
https://sites.google.com/site/hafcastereport/
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
An ardent Hindu denounces the HAF report on caste
You are by now familiar with the ill-conceived report on caste by HAF. The report received a lot of criticism as soon as it was released due to the following reasons:
- The report is blatantly anti-Hindu and is full of factual errors.
- It repeats the Christian missionary and Marxist propaganda.
- It perverts our sacred bhakti traditions and scriptures in a shocking manner.
- The HAF has reversed its own earlier stance during the CA textbook lawsuit
- The report is endorsed, and was likely influenced, by white Christian academics that have openly declared that while caste is a Hindu problem the solution should come from other religions too. This is what missionaries have always urged. Now the HAF is agreeing with missionaries.
The HAF claimed that many Hindu swamijis have endorsed the report. But when the contents of the report were shown to the swamijis they were shocked and many of them issued directives asking the HAF to withdraw the report. I do not know why the HAF tried to manipulate our swamijis in the first place.
The HAF reached out to Vishal Agarwal, Krishnan Ramaswamy, and me to provide revisions. I understand that they reached out to a few others as well. I do not have organizational affiliations. My interest is dharma. So, I will work with any organization for the sake of dharma. In this case, since it was important to correct the report, I volunteered to revise it. I made it clear that the report requires substantive changes. Vishal, Krishnan, and I highlighted in red all sections of the report that needed revision effectively turning the report red.
A few days into the process, the HAF informed me that they are only looking for cosmetic changes and not anything substantive. I have been insistent from the very beginning that any discussion on caste discrimination should be factual and should contrast Hindu achievements with the rampant apartheid prevalent in American churches and Christian terrorism since no one has done more than Hindus to correct social inequities. The HAF informed that they will not allow any criticism of the white Christian establishments in this report. The HAF also issued a news item in the news media insulting our swamijis. These were unacceptable to me. I refused to provide any further edits to the report.
I am currently writing a critique of the HAF report. My critique will be titled, “Caste: a HAF-baked lamentation.” It will be released soon and will show why this report is harmful to Hindus. It is with a lot of sadness that I am writing this critique as it is directed at the HAF which has served Hinduism well in the past but has failed us this time.
It is imperative that Hindus publicly dissociate themselves from this report so that the report cannot harm Hindu interests. An open dissociation will preclude HAF from claiming to be a representative of Hindus on the issue of caste. I do not know what compulsions made:
- The HAF to partner with anti-Hindu organizations such as Navyashastra to issue this report. Navyashastra has disseminated the call to burn the Ramayana and the Mahabharata and to have a UN tribunal put Hinduism on trial.
- The Human Rights Coordinator of the HAF to declare that the Ramayana is a racist narrative.
- The HAF repeat anti-Hindu propaganda by Christian missionaries as if they are facts.
The HAF has been secretive about their purpose in releasing this report. I presume that one of the intended purposes is to get the HAF an admission into one of the human rights bodies of the US State department. The HAF cannot sacrifice larger Hindu interests just to get themselves into a human rights body. If taking an anti-Hindu position is a precondition to enter these bodies, Hindu organizations should stay away from those bodies.
Many Hindus in India have raised a valid question, echoing the famous lines of Subrahmanya Bharati: “What right do these foreigners have to interfere into our affairs?” I second that. The HAF is an American organization. They refuse to talk about egregious religious apartheid and segregation in the American churches which are neatly divided into black, white, Hispanic, and Chinese churches. But they are eager to portray Hinduism negatively and to pontificate to Indians.
It is also very shameful that the HAF should, willingly or otherwise, end up as an instrument of the US State department and its agencies that are set to evangelize India.
It is with sadness that I denounce this report publicly. I hope the HAF will make amends. I hope Krishnan and Vishal will continue to provide revisions and that the HAF will incorporate those.
The HAF created this problem. They have to now solve it. This is also a wakeup call for other Hindus to found organizations that would represent them without sacrificing the Hindu interests.
Regards,
Kalavai Venkat
http://medhajournal.com/sections/haf-caste-report/1082-kalavai-denounces-hindu-american-foundation-report.html
The HAF Report on Caste: A Critique,January 25, 2011
The HAF Report on Caste & Its Implications:
A Critique from Members of the Hindu Community and Hindu Groups at Large
http://medhajournal.com/caste/haf-caste-report/1081-the-haf-report-on-caste-a-critiquejanuary-25-2011.html
USG-Vatican axis to promote conversions; why HAF should withdraw their online report.
If HAF report remains online, it will send a message that HAF is playing the role of interlocutor in the nefarious designs of the USG-Vatican axis orchestrated by Cardinal Tauran and his troop commander in India, Cardinal Oswald Gracias force behind the ‘Indian Bible’, the ‘New Community Bible’ released by the Mumbai Catholic Church. This included hundreds of verses from Vedas and Upanishads. Cardinal Oswald Gracias claimed that ‘this bible was spoken by the God and written by people.’
Cardinal Tauran’s role was mentioned in recent diplomatic dispatches now on the public domain through Wikileaked cables from US Embassies.
HAF should not be perceived to be a supporter of the USG-Vatican axis and the axis’ onslaughts on Hindu samajam.
Clear and loud message of Cardinal Tauran -led dialogue: Conversion to Christianity would cure all diseases afflicting Indian ‘caste-based discriminations’. Kanchi Acharya countered by welcoming the proposed anti-conversion law in Sri Lanka, mooted by the Joint Council of Buddhist Organisations, and strongly endorsed it as an essential measure.
Let not HAF report become a commentary on and endorsement of the Mumbai Catholic Church’s ‘New Community Bible’ revealed by God.
HAF should withdraw their report and revisions without any further delay and open a process of consultation with Hindu samajam before further damage is done.
The visit of Cardinal Tauran as part of interfaith dialogue in 2009 to India (read harping on human rights violations in India to promote conversions) which is mentioned in Wikicable leaks. This visit and the then proposed visit of USCIRF to India (which was called off) show how USGovt. and Vatican are an axis attacking India. The terminology used in HAF report is no different from the terminology used in these initiatives of USG-Vatican axis.
Excerpt from a wikicable just released:
¶9. (C) Despite the difficulty for the Vatican of finding common ground with polytheistic religions, Holy See officials are starting to do just that in an effort to support peace, religious freedom, human rights, and local solutions to local problems (see septel). [Note: septel means separate telegram. This telegram has been cited above: Vatican - the supranational power ] Cardinal Tauran travelled to India in June 2009 for initial dialogue with Hindus. Tauran’s goal was to go beyond the positive assurances that had characterized previous meetings with Hindu leaders.http://213.251.145.96/cable/2009/12/09VATICAN134.html Mirrored at:
https://sites.google.com/site/indiawikicable/databaseindiacables
Here are some excerpts from a detailed report by Shri BR Haran (20 June 2009):
…the Church realised its nefarious activities could have dangerous repercussions and resorted to its trusted method of “interfaith dialogue” to mollify the majority community. An interfaith dialogue was organised in Mumbai on 12-13 June, and the Vatican sent Cardinal Jean-Louis Pierre Tauran, head of the Pontifical Council for Interfaith Dialogue.
Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Indian Bible fame played a pivotal role in arranging this conference and Pedro Lopez Quintana, Vatican envoy to India, Archbishop Felix Machado of Nashik, Bishop Thomas Dabre of Pune, and Bishop Raphy Manjaly of Varanasi, also attended. The Catholic leaders had invited His Holiness Kanchi Sankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati, Sri Sri Ravishankar, Swami Vageeshananda (Ramakrishna Mission), Dadi Janakiji (Prajapati Brahma Kumaris), Swami Nirmalananda Nath (Karnataka), and Swami Chidananda Saraswati (Divine Life Society, Uttaranchal).
Lessons for the Church
The presence of Advani acolyte Sudheendra Kulkarni (who also mysteriously appeared at the May 2006 interfaith dialogue in Italy) at the invitation of Cardinal Oswald Gracias, and the conspicuous absence of some prominent personalities, suggested careful vetting and screening of invitees. Nonetheless, the leadership of Kanchi Acharya was the most significant aspect of this meeting, as he not only had the stature but also the knowledge and understanding of issues involved, along with the required solutions. He also has the capacity to articulate convincingly to arrive at an amicable solution.
As the deliberations centered round communal conflicts, the cause of conflict was examined – conversions. His Holiness Sankaracharya opened the proceedings by bringing out the fact that during Pope Benedict XVI’s recent visit to Jerusalem and interfaith dialogue with Jewish religious leaders, the Pope gave an undertaking that, “henceforth it would desist from all missionary and conversion activities” among the Jews. Swami Jayendra Saraswati demanded a similar pact with the Hindu community in India.
The Acharya underscored the importance of faithful adherence to points agreed at the meeting; else failure would result in the futility of such meetings. He reiterated that the Church must reassure the Hindus that it would not hurt their sentiments and wound their sensibilities. Quoting Pope John Paul II’s call for planting the Cross in Asia to cause the Second Coming of Jesus, he demanded that the Vatican to explain the rationale for the first coming of Jesus Christ when there was no Christianity or Church to undertake the mission of christianising the world.
Kanchi Acharya strongly condemned the proposed visit of the USCIRF and said that Hindus would not permit such interference in the internal affairs of India. He demanded the setting up of a common pool to collect all foreign funds received by the Church, in order to distribute the same among all social welfare organisations, irrespective of religious affiliation. Calling upon all Hindu organisations to work together to eradicate the menace of conversion, he advised Indians to live with mutual respect and harmony in a shared sense of nationalism which should bind all as one nation, irrespective of religious affiliation.
He called for the immediate stoppage of all devious ‘inculturation’ methods being adopted by various Christian denominations and the practice of preaching that conversion to Christianity would cure all diseases, which is violative of the DRUGS AND MAGIC REMEDIES ACT, 1954. He welcomed the proposed anti-conversion law in Sri Lanka, mooted by the Joint Council of Buddhist Organisations, and strongly endorsed it as an essential measure.
Emphasising Sanatana Dharma, he said the soul of India is religious and spiritual, and urged the government to declare India a “Spiritual” country, not a “Secular” country, as secularism is an administrative quality and cannot be the soul of the nation. Kanchi Perivaar also condemned the usurping of Hindu scriptures for incorporating them in the so-called ‘Indian Bible’ and demanded immediate withdrawal of copies of the book; he demanded that government do the needful.
Cardinal lies
During the press conference at the end of the meeting, Cardinal Oswald Gracious, the brain behind the “Indian Bible,” denied any knowledge about it! Shri P. Deivamuthu, Editor of the Mumbai-based monthly magazine “Hindu Voice,” expressed shock:
“I attended the Press Conference, held today (12th June 2009) at 3.30 p.m. at the Shanmukhananda Hall, King Circle, Mumbai, addressed by Kanchi Shankaracharya Swamiji and the Archbishop of Mumbai, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, subsequent to the Inter-Religious Dialogue held at the same venue.
After their Press Briefing, when question time arrived, I put a question to Cardinal Oswald Gracias: ‘In the Indian Community Bible released by Mumbai Catholic Church, you have included hundreds of verses from Vedas and Upanishads. Does this not amount to stealing the intellectual property of Hindus?’ The answer given by the Cardinal was ‘I am not aware of this.’”
Having himself released the Book – The New Community Bible – the Cardinal had the temerity to say he was not aware of it, in the presence of 30-odd journalists and photographers. If this is not a blatant lie, what is it?
My subsequent question was: ‘Does that mean that Bible was written by human beings, and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ?’ His answer was: ‘It was spoken by the God and written by people.’”
Nevertheless, it remains undeniable that the Catholic leaders were taken aback by Kanchi Acharya’s élan and subtle and strong articulation. They promptly put the blame for conversions on other Christian denominations and joined the Acharya in condemning conversions by force and allurement. They agreed to bring the Protestants and other denominations for any future dialogue. ..
Future course of action
The just concluded Hindu-Catholic dialogue is truly significant in the sense that this is the first time the Hindu side has been categorical, authoritative, and to the point, and the Catholic Church has been shown its place in a religiously diplomatic manner.
It now depends on the Church to make the meeting meaningful by abiding with the agreements. Unfortunately, the track record of the Church is not encouraging. And when the political class, particularly the UPA regime and ‘secular’ media are hand in glove with the Church, nothing constructive can be expected in future. Anyway, the onus lies squarely on the Church and one can only hope it realises the importance of communal amity and acts accordingly.
All Hindu religious, cultural and service organisations also have a huge responsibility to work towards a Hindu renaissance. Sadly, the Hindu community remains content in caste, linguistic and sectarian grooves, ceding ground to other faiths in the public domain.
Hindus need to channel the energies of their respective caste, sampradaya, language group, to a pan-India Hindu cause, to protect the Hindu bhoomi as the only motherland.
Conversion is the ‘root cause’ of all problems; it shatters peace and harmony. Christians of all denominations must be made to respect the Constitution and stop ‘conversions’ and other evangelical activities with immediate effect. They must also be prohibited from constructing new Churches and Prayer Houses, which have already far exceeded the flock, much like the disproportionate assets of politicians! Their evangelical congregations must be allowed only in their own premises and not in public places. The masses must be made aware of the covert means of conversion and a strict vigil maintained on the activities of dubious organizations.
Nepal, once a Hindu kingdom, is fast becoming a Christian nation because of losing its ‘soul.’ Sri Lanka, however, has realized the Christian threat and readied itself to deal with it. India must act like Sri Lanka. The Kanchi Acharya has paved the way and it is the duty of other Hindu organisations to follow suit.
(Concluded)
The author is a senior journalist; he lives in Chennai
[This article series was written before the proposed visit of USCIRF to India was called off – Editor]
http://vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=642
The full text of Shri BR Haran’s report is reproduced below:
¶9. (C) Despite the difficulty for the Vatican of finding common ground with polytheistic religions, Holy See officials are starting to do just that in an effort to support peace, religious freedom, human rights, and local solutions to local problems (see septel). [Note: septel means separate telegram. This telegram has been cited above: Vatican - the supranational power ] Cardinal Tauran travelled to India in June 2009 for initial dialogue with Hindus. Tauran’s goal was to go beyond the positive assurances that had characterized previous meetings with Hindu leaders.//
This was the dialogue in which Kanchi Acharya emphatically and categorically questioned the legitimacy of the dialogue sought by Cardinal Tauran and his Indian troops.
Interfaith dialogue: in whose interest? – I
B R Haran
18 Jun 2009
“Interfaith Dialogue” refers to interaction between two or more religious traditions, at both individual and institutional levels, leading to understanding of values and respecting them, resulting in prevalence of communal amity.
The compulsion to participate in interfaith dialogues arises due to two reasons. First, when the ‘state’ fails to take care of the majority community and panders to the minority communities; second, when the minority communities, emboldened by the state’s pandering, go overboard and interfere with the cultural customs and religious practices of the majority community, resulting in conflict and disorder.
Hindu Dharma and secularism
Hindus have co-existed with other indigenous creeds (Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs and others) without problems for ages, and the peace and harmony prevailing in this great Hindu land was affected only with the advent of Abrahamic faiths, mainly Islam and Christianity, which oppressed the Hindu majority in various ways.
Despite being at the receiving end for several hundred years, the Hindu majority was magnanimous at the time of independence and addressed minorities with concern while framing the Constitution, and ensured their safety, security and religious freedom. India even refrained from enacting a ‘Common Civil Code.’ The Hindu majority never treated Christians and Muslims as descendents of ‘invaders,’ but as fellow citizens.
Sanatana Dharma has been the character and culture of this great nation. Hindu culture treats the world as a divine family – Vasudaiva Kutumbakam – and welcomes outsiders as aspects of divinity – Atithi Devo Bhava!
Such exalted concepts make words like ‘secularism’ hollow and redundant in the Hindu ethos. Monotheistic religions have no space for non-believers (in Allah or Mohammed or Yahweh or Jesus). Christianity introduced the concept of secularism in western society in order to end sectarian fratricide; as Hindus have no concept or tradition of such murderous sectarianism, secularism in India can at best be a quality of administration by the state.
But the post-independence state has failed to understand this imported notion of secularism, and hence, far from steering clear of all religion, successive governments have failed even to treat all religions equally.
The privileged minorities
Minorities have been given extra privileges by an extra-solicitous Constituent Assembly. Beginning with Article 14, up to Article 30, they have been granted many freedoms, with the Hindu majority getting a raw deal. This has emboldened the minorities to provoke, hurt and disrespect the Hindu majority, while working to achieve their religious objectives. This has naturally resulted in repeated conflicts.
India has undergone major demographic changes in the 60 years since independence; the ineptness of Congress and other political parties has lost Hindu bhoomi in many states to minorities. All political parties have failed the Hindus, and particularly after the arrival of the foreigner-led UPA at the centre, a Christian agenda is being silently achieved to the detriment of this Hindu nation. Simultaneously, Muslim fundamentalists are being encouraged to wage war (jihad) against the nation.
India lost huge territory when Pakistan was born, along with the current Bangladesh. Since then, the north-east has been Christianised; Kashmir is in trouble; so is Goa; 50% of Kerala is lost to minorities; large parts of Maharashtra, Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have become Islamic; a large portion of Karnataka, Andhra and Tamil Nadu have become Christianised.
Churches and missionaries of all denominations have become the second largest land owners in the country – next only to the government – and have been building churches and prayer houses anywhere and everywhere, totally disproportionate to their flock. A similar mushrooming of mosques disproportionate to Muslim population is also cause for concern.
History shows that both Islam and Christianity have been more ‘political’ in nature rather than ‘spiritual;’ they have spread worldwide through invasions and persecutions. India has borne the brunt of both Islam and Christianity through jihad and conversions respectively. Both religions have been successful, thanks to an inept political class and immature people who get carried away by ‘secular’ machinations of the political class and the Machiavellian agenda of the clergy of the Abrahamic faiths.
The unholy nexus between pseudo-secular politicians and minority community leaders, aided and abetted by foreign-funded media houses, has caused immense damage to the character of this Hindu nation. When things go beyond tolerance, the majority reacts spontaneously, as happened in Gujarat, Orissa, Karnataka and Jammu (Amarnath). After such reactions, the Hindu majority reverts to its usual tolerant self, hoping that the minority with which conflict took place would also settle down, but the ‘Marxist-media-minority’ nexus plays ugly ‘victimhood’ games in the international arena, bringing disrepute to the country.
In between, minority community leaders organize so-called interfaith dialogues to create a false picture of reconciliation, and successfully complete the exercise by forcing their pre-conceived ‘resolutions’ on the few ‘secularised’ Hindu leaders, using jugglery of words and making them sign a declaration accepting resolutions advantageous to minorities only.
Roman Catholics vs. other denominations
The Vatican is very clever in conducting such farcical exercises. The prime objective of the Vatican is Christianisation of the whole world. The same was pronounced by Pope John Paul II when he gave a “catholic” call for evangelization of Asia, particularly India, during his visit to the country in November 1999. He had the audacity to give such a call standing on Indian soil, that too, as India’s state guest! The Vatican has a history of achieving its objectives by creating divisions among local people leading to conflicts, and later through a healing touch by rehabilitation, education and healthcare.
While other Christian denominations are aggressive and overt in their evangelical activities, Roman Catholics are covert and subtle. The Catholic leadership doesn’t restrain the other denominations from indulging in aggressive evangelization, purely for the reason that this differentiation helps them to create concepts like “ethical” and “unethical” conversions, or “forced” and “unforced” (voluntary) conversions.
The Catholic leadership always blames other denominations for “unethical” and “forced” conversions during these so-called interfaith dialogues, in order to convince leaders of other faiths to accept the dangerous concept of “ethical” conversions. It achieved success in one such farcical dialogue at the Vatican in May 2006, where leaders whose names have not been made public in India, went ahead and signed a declaration accepting the resolutions prepared by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches!
There is another motive behind the Vatican’s interfaith dialogues. That is to indirectly put pressure and restrictions on other denominations which poach its targetted community for harvesting.
In this fight for “harvest” between various denominations, one question arises – what is the need for Hindus to agree for such dialogues and why should they participate? Hindus don’t indulge in blasphemy of other faiths, gods, and scriptures; they don’t indulge in conversion activities; they don’t interfere in other religious traditions; they don’t meddle with other faiths. On the contrary, Hindus have been amicable to others and they have been tolerating the propaganda (however provocative) of other religions.
Dhimmitude and disunity
How are they reciprocated? By hacking bodies (jihad) and harvesting souls (conversions)! Much of the so-called tolerance is simply dhimmitude, the result of being beaten up or beaten down for ages. Dhimmitude resulted from Nehruvian secularism and impacted Hindus so much that they cannot see the monster standing gleefully before their eyes; they are still in deep slumber.
Some religious leaders are averse to identifying themselves and their ‘teachings’ as ‘Hindu;’ they are more interested in marketing their wares in a global market, than in spreading dharma among the masses in the remotest hamlets. Some Hindu leaders are so magnanimous (naïve?) that they preach “all faiths are the same”! Faiths and custom-oriented traditional mathams have lost out to personality-oriented and business-oriented ‘cults.’
Interfaith dialogue: in whose interest? – II
B R Haran
19 Jun 2009
Inculturation techniques
When the hosts are divided, the guest will enjoy! As Hindus stand divided, the Church and Missionaries are deep into an activity called “Inculturation.” This is nothing but copying our traditional practices like wearing saffron robes, rudraksha and tulsi malas, pilgrimage by padayatra, astotra and sahasranama archana for Jesus, composing songs on Jesus and Mary on the tune of our devotional hymns, calling Mary as Mariamman, planting crosses and constructing prayer houses and churches (unauthorized) on hills and creating a ‘girivalam’ path around them and so on more. This is outrageous and provocative, and must be stopped at once.
An organization called “Shantivanam” in Tiruchi indulges in such blatant inculturation techniques and has already spread its wings to famous temple towns like Tiruvannamalai to wreak havoc among millions of Hindu devotees. It allegedly interferes with the affairs of Sri Ramana Ashram as well. Such organizations are tacitly supported by church and missionaries. The Hindu scriptures have been distorted to suit biblical messages and such distortions have been distributed through brochures, pamphlets and leaflets. As Hindus were unable to get their act together, the Churches started reaping heavy harvests.
Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and Vatican’s disregard
It was under these circumstances that the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha was formed, thanks to a few noble souls who felt the need for united action and understood the imminent danger facing the nation. The HDAS came into being in 2002 as the apex body to provide leadership and a collective voice for Hindus; at present more than 130 swamis (sampradaya heads) across the country are members.
The first interfaith meeting organised jointly by the Vatican and the World Council of Churches took place in May 2006. The Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha posted its decisions on its website, but remained remarkably coy about whether or not it participated in the deliberations officially on behalf of the HDAS or not. BJP leader L K Advani’s prime acolyte Sudheendra Kulkarni later went on record to say he was there, but nothing more could be gleaned about whom he represented at the gathering.
The Hindu tragedy is that some globe-trotting swamis with western bhaktas have grabbed a media profile while yielding to the devious tactics of Vatican and the World Council of Churches, encouraging them to pursue their evangelical activities unfettered. The Roman Catholic Church came out with a most outrageous ‘New Community Bible’ christened as the “Indian Bible,” which included sacred verses from the Ithihasas, Gita, Vedas and Upanishads.
This Hybrid Bible depicted Virgin Mary barefoot, wearing a sari and sporting a bindi on her forehead, a naked baby Jesus on one shoulder, standing beside Joseph clad in loincloth and turban. It was released in June 2008 and a print run of 30,000 copies sold out in a week in Mumbai; many shops limited distribution to three copies per person. Some famous bookshops in Delhi reported that even “Hindus” bought copies of the Indian Bible!
The hybrid Bible was reportedly conceived in the 1980s. The Indian Catholic clergy deputed over 20 experts on Christianity and Indian Religions to devise a commentary that would help Indian converts – the end product was the so-called “Indian Bible”! The Catholic Bishops Conference of India approved it and Vatican blessed the initiative.
(Ref: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4402482.ece)
This goes to show the weight given by Vatican and the Catholic community to resolutions of even the highly tilted interfaith conference held at the Vatican in May 2006. This reinforces the view that interfaith dialogue is a farce aimed at only deceiving Hindus.
Exactly parallel to the launch of the Indian Bible by the Mumbai Catholic Diocese, the Madras Catholic Diocese inaugurated a Tamil film project on the mythical St. Thomas. The aim was to establish as historical fact the mythology of the arrival of St. Thomas’s on the shores of Madras, his supposed acquaintance with the Tamil weaver-saint Thiruvalluvar in Mylapore, and finally his death at the hands of a Tamil Brahmin. Ironically, the present Pope Benedict XVI has categorically refuted the story of St. Thomas’s travel to South India. Despite this refutation, the Vatican extended its blessings for the movie project, another instance of the hypocrisy and duplicity of the Church.
GFCH vs. Islam and Christianity
Just six months before the launch of the Indian Bible and inauguration of the St. Thomas film, the Global Foundation for Civilisational Harmony (GFCH) India, was launched in Delhi on 22 January 2008. The function was attended by religious leaders of all faiths, viz. the Dalai Lama, Swami Dayanand Saraswati, Sri Sri Ravishankar, Baba Ramdev, Akal Takht chief Jathedar Joginder Singh Vedanti, Swami Nityanand, Swami Mitrananda, Jain Muni Sumermal, Mumbai Archbishop Cardinal Oswald Gracias, Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband chief Maulana Mohammad Ali Madani, Rabbi Ezekiel Issac Malekar and Swami Prajnan Mitranand. Dr APJ Abdul Kalam delivered the presidential address.
The point being made here is that right after attending the launch of GFCH and supporting its initiatives, Mumbai Cardinal Oswald Gracias went ahead and launched the strange hybrid beast called “Indian Bible,” thus making a mockery of civilisational harmony! He had the temerity to say, “I am sure this Bible, made in India and for Indians, will bring the word of God closer to millions of our people, not only Christians.”
Despite this, many Hindu organisations don’t realise the threat Christianity poses to the dharma. The GFCH went on to conduct a “Hindu Spiritual and Service Fair” in February 2009, during the inauguration of which some revered heads spoke about “common” traits and the ‘oneness’ of all faiths! The GFCH announced intention of conducting such spiritual and service fairs exclusively for Islam and Christianity as well.
The GFCH took the initiative to work with Dar-ul-Uloom Deoband to hold rallies against terrorism and promote religious harmony in different parts of India. The GFCH believed its initiative resulted in Deoband issuing a ‘Fatwa’ against terrorism and describing such violent activities as Un-Islamic. The fatwa was followed by a series of bomb blasts in Jaipur on 13 May 2008, resulting in the death of 63 innocent persons and injuries to over 200, including women and children.
An anti-terrorism global peace conference, organised in New Delhi on 31 May 2008, had the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind and several other Muslim bodies issue a “fatwa” against terrorism. As per GFCH, the conference adopted a seven-point declaration condemning the propaganda that “regards terrorism as synonymous with jihad.” “There is a world of difference between terrorism and jihad. Jihad is constructive and terrorism is destructive. Jihad is for the establishment of peace… terrorism is the gravest crime as held by Koran and Islam,” the declaration said
(Ref: http://gfchindia.com/about-us/about-us.html ).
Again this fatwa was followed by serial blasts on 25 July 2008 in Bangalore (2 killed, 25 injured), serial blasts in Ahmedabad on 26 July 2008 (56 killed, over 200 injured), blasts on 13 September 2008 in New Delhi (30 killed, over 100 injured), blasts on 27 September 2008 in Delhi (3 dead, 23 injured) and the Mumbai terror attack for three days between 26 to 29 November 2009, which took the lives of 173 innocent people and injured over 300 persons.
The unabated and continuous terror attacks, despite the so-called fatwas by Islamic organizations, expose the ‘drama’ played by Deoband and others. The fatwas were a response to silence criticism that Muslim clerics remain silent spectators of Islamic terrorism. It seems the Shia concept of “taqiyaa” (lying for the sake of the faith) was utilized to whitewash the concept of ‘jihad’ and issue a ‘fatwa’ condemning it. Clearly and unfortunately, the GFCH was unequal to the political skills of Deoband Dar-ul-Uloom.
Interfaith dialogue: in whose interest? – III
B R Haran
20 Jun 2009
The interfaith dialogue, Mumbai
As the despicable actions of different Christian denominations continued unabatedly, including alleged complicity in the murder of Hindu saints in Orissa and the blasphemous distortions of Hindu sacred scriptures in Karnataka, the majority community spontaneously reacted with a vengeance as the acts went beyond the limits of tolerance. As expected, the Church played victim and projected Hindus as communal marauders.
The UPA government and the ‘secular’ media also projected the Hindu majority in a bad light, and the Prime Minister shocked the nation by slavishly assuring the French President instead of telling him not to interfere in India’s internal affairs. The secular brigade’s act of internationalising India’s domestic issues resulted in the proposed visit of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) to Gujarat and Orissa.
However, the Church realised its nefarious activities could have dangerous repercussions and resorted to its trusted method of “interfaith dialogue” to mollify the majority community. An interfaith dialogue was organised in Mumbai on 12-13 June, and the Vatican sent Cardinal Jean-Louis Pierre Tauran, head of the Pontifical Council for Interfaith Dialogue.
Cardinal Oswald Gracias of Indian Bible fame played a pivotal role in arranging this conference and Pedro Lopez Quintana, Vatican envoy to India, Archbishop Felix Machado of Nashik, Bishop Thomas Dabre of Pune, and Bishop Raphy Manjaly of Varanasi, also attended. The Catholic leaders had invited His Holiness Kanchi Sankaracharya Sri Jayendra Saraswati, Sri Sri Ravishankar, Swami Vageeshananda (Ramakrishna Mission), Dadi Janakiji (Prajapati Brahma Kumaris), Swami Nirmalananda Nath (Karnataka), and Swami Chidananda Saraswati (Divine Life Society, Uttaranchal).
Lessons for the Church
The presence of Advani acolyte Sudheendra Kulkarni (who also mysteriously appeared at the May 2006 interfaith dialogue in Italy) at the invitation of Cardinal Oswald Gracias, and the conspicuous absence of some prominent personalities, suggested careful vetting and screening of invitees. Nonetheless, the leadership of Kanchi Acharya was the most significant aspect of this meeting, as he not only had the stature but also the knowledge and understanding of issues involved, along with the required solutions. He also has the capacity to articulate convincingly to arrive at an amicable solution.
As the deliberations centered round communal conflicts, the cause of conflict was examined – conversions. His Holiness Sankaracharya opened the proceedings by bringing out the fact that during Pope Benedict XVI’s recent visit to Jerusalem and interfaith dialogue with Jewish religious leaders, the Pope gave an undertaking that, “henceforth it would desist from all missionary and conversion activities” among the Jews. Swami Jayendra Saraswati demanded a similar pact with the Hindu community in India.
The Acharya underscored the importance of faithful adherence to points agreed at the meeting; else failure would result in the futility of such meetings. He reiterated that the Church must reassure the Hindus that it would not hurt their sentiments and wound their sensibilities. Quoting Pope John Paul II’s call for planting the Cross in Asia to cause the Second Coming of Jesus, he demanded that the Vatican to explain the rationale for the first coming of Jesus Christ when there was no Christianity or Church to undertake the mission of christianising the world.
Kanchi Acharya strongly condemned the proposed visit of the USCIRF and said that Hindus would not permit such interference in the internal affairs of India. He demanded the setting up of a common pool to collect all foreign funds received by the Church, in order to distribute the same among all social welfare organisations, irrespective of religious affiliation. Calling upon all Hindu organisations to work together to eradicate the menace of conversion, he advised Indians to live with mutual respect and harmony in a shared sense of nationalism which should bind all as one nation, irrespective of religious affiliation.
He called for the immediate stoppage of all devious ‘inculturation’ methods being adopted by various Christian denominations and the practice of preaching that conversion to Christianity would cure all diseases, which is violative of the DRUGS AND MAGIC REMEDIES ACT, 1954. He welcomed the proposed anti-conversion law in Sri Lanka, mooted by the Joint Council of Buddhist Organisations, and strongly endorsed it as an essential measure.
Emphasising Sanatana Dharma, he said the soul of India is religious and spiritual, and urged the government to declare India a “Spiritual” country, not a “Secular” country, as secularism is an administrative quality and cannot be the soul of the nation. Kanchi Perivaar also condemned the usurping of Hindu scriptures for incorporating them in the so-called ‘Indian Bible’ and demanded immediate withdrawal of copies of the book; he demanded that government do the needful.
Cardinal lies
During the press conference at the end of the meeting, Cardinal Oswald Gracious, the brain behind the “Indian Bible,” denied any knowledge about it! Shri P. Deivamuthu, Editor of the Mumbai-based monthly magazine “Hindu Voice,” expressed shock:
“I attended the Press Conference, held today (12th June 2009) at 3.30 p.m. at the Shanmukhananda Hall, King Circle, Mumbai, addressed by Kanchi Shankaracharya Swamiji and the Archbishop of Mumbai, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, subsequent to the Inter-Religious Dialogue held at the same venue.
After their Press Briefing, when question time arrived, I put a question to Cardinal Oswald Gracias: ‘In the Indian Community Bible released by Mumbai Catholic Church, you have included hundreds of verses from Vedas and Upanishads. Does this not amount to stealing the intellectual property of Hindus?’ The answer given by the Cardinal was ‘I am not aware of this.’”
Having himself released the Book – The New Community Bible – the Cardinal had the temerity to say he was not aware of it, in the presence of 30-odd journalists and photographers. If this is not a blatant lie, what is it?
My subsequent question was: ‘Does that mean that Bible was written by human beings, and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ?’ His answer was: ‘It was spoken by the God and written by people.’”
Nevertheless, it remains undeniable that the Catholic leaders were taken aback by Kanchi Acharya’s élan and subtle and strong articulation. They promptly put the blame for conversions on other Christian denominations and joined the Acharya in condemning conversions by force and allurement. They agreed to bring the Protestants and other denominations for any future dialogue.
It is learnt that the Church leaders are now awaiting the verdict of the USCIRF, which may visit India in coming weeks, unless advised otherwise by the UPA. They are keen that USCIRF help their ‘cause.’ Controversial characters like Orissa Archbishop Raphael Cheenath also pinned his hopes on the visit, saying it could be pivotal in restricting ‘violence’ and ensuring ‘protection’ of minorities.
(http://in.christiantoday.com/articles/hindu-pontiff-slams-us-commission-visit-to-india/4027.htm )
Future course of action
The just concluded Hindu-Catholic dialogue is truly significant in the sense that this is the first time the Hindu side has been categorical, authoritative, and to the point, and the Catholic Church has been shown its place in a religiously diplomatic manner.
It now depends on the Church to make the meeting meaningful by abiding with the agreements. Unfortunately, the track record of the Church is not encouraging. And when the political class, particularly the UPA regime and ‘secular’ media are hand in glove with the Church, nothing constructive can be expected in future. Anyway, the onus lies squarely on the Church and one can only hope it realises the importance of communal amity and acts accordingly.
All Hindu religious, cultural and service organisations also have a huge responsibility to work towards a Hindu renaissance. Sadly, the Hindu community remains content in caste, linguistic and sectarian grooves, ceding ground to other faiths in the public domain.
Hindus need to channel the energies of their respective caste, sampradaya, language group, to a pan-India Hindu cause, to protect the Hindu bhoomi as the only motherland.
Conversion is the ‘root cause’ of all problems; it shatters peace and harmony. Christians of all denominations must be made to respect the Constitution and stop ‘conversions’ and other evangelical activities with immediate effect. They must also be prohibited from constructing new Churches and Prayer Houses, which have already far exceeded the flock, much like the disproportionate assets of politicians! Their evangelical congregations must be allowed only in their own premises and not in public places. The masses must be made aware of the covert means of conversion and a strict vigil maintained on the activities of dubious organizations.
Nepal, once a Hindu kingdom, is fast becoming a Christian nation because of losing its ‘soul.’ Sri Lanka, however, has realized the Christian threat and readied itself to deal with it. India must act like Sri Lanka. The Kanchi Acharya has paved the way and it is the duty of other Hindu organisations to follow suit.
(Concluded)
The author is a senior journalist; he lives in Chennai
[This article series was written before the proposed visit of USCIRF to India was called off – Editor]
7.1 Human rights violations in the form of caste-based discrimination… 587.2 Human rights violations against Scheduled Caste women…………………………… 597.2a. Rape and sexual assault…………………………………………597.2b. Prostitution/Flesh trade ………………………………………… 627.2c. Public Humiliation ……………………………………………….. 637.3 Caste related social ostracism ………………………………….. 657.3a. Denial of access to public facilities ………………………….. 657.3b. Inter-caste social relations …………………………………….. 697.4 Economic discrimination and exploitation againstSchedule Castes ……………………….. 707.5 Violence against Scheduled Castes …………………………… 737.6 Bias and discrimination by government institutions ………… 747.6a. Police custody …………………………………………………… 757.7 Continuation of human rights violations ……………………….. 76
¶13. (C) INDIA: INDIA HAS SEEN SIGNIFICANT SECTARIAN VIOLENCE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS, AS MUCH AGAINST MUSLIMS AS CHRISTIANS. RESOLUTION OF THIS VIOLENCE IS A KEY TO DEMOCRACY, STABILITY AND THE GUARANTEE OF HUMAN RIGHTS. THE VATICAN, LOCAL BISHOPS WHO REPORT TO THE VATICAN, AND VARIOUS MISSIONARY ORGANIZATIONS WILL ALL CONTINUE TO BE ACTIVE OBSERVERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES AND DEVELOPMENTS.
kalyan
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 6:49 AM
Subject: Fwd: My comments on HAF Caste Report
To:
Swamiji has already given clear guidelines for action by HAF: ”Pujya Swamiji has also suggested that, given the complex and contentious nature of the subject of the report and its ramifications, however unintended, HAF may seriously consider inviting observations and comments of a wider circle of knowledgeable persons and those with practical grass roots experience over the last several decades in India in the subject matter. This may help HAF to reach a wise decision regarding the manner in which the report as it stands now may be revised in the larger interests of Hindu society.”
dhanyavaadaah.
kalyanaraman
From: Jayakumar S. Ammangudi <jkumar6ATsbcglobal.net>
To: Rishi Bhutada <rishAThafsite.org>; Jay Kansara <jay@hafsite.org>; Aseem Shukla <aseemAThafsite.org>
Cc: Jayendra Ganguli <jsganguliATyahoo.com>
Sent: Fri, December 24, 2010 3:31:46 PM
Subject: Re: Thank you for the call
In Hindu Dharma, all pieces of work, and most definitely important undertakings, are started with the blessings of our Acharyas. Because the final report was not circulated and the full intention not revealed to the Acharyas and Religious Leaders of India, this initiative violates that tenet, and also is not worthy of the status of a peer reviewed work – the kind of credibility that HAF is seeking. While HAF is claiming that its report is being used out of context, it is HAF that has committed an unrighteous act by not fully revealing its objectives to the Acharyas and Hindu Religious Leaders referred to in the report. The scope revealed to them has been to get their opinion on discrimination based on caste, or the scriptural mandates and definitions of caste. What is not revealed to them are things such as HAF’s intentions to:
1. Apologize on behalf of Hindus, and
2. Reaching out to organizations with an implicit or explicit agenda to break Hindu Dharma.
In our conversation, you mentioned the desire to reach out to Dalits. This is not accomplished by the report. Instead, the report legitimizes the various organizations and individuals such as EVR Naicker and DFN who have ulterior motives of chritistianizing or dravidianizing or dividing India. I was surprised when I heard that you were “hopeful” that the report will not be used by anti-Hindu outfits. This reflects either a lack of understanding of the dynamics involved or a hidden agenda within the HAF.
Summarizing my objections to this report:
1. By making a unilateral apology on behalf of Hindus, HAF has given itself the authority to speak on a contentious subject on behalf of all the Hindus of this world. HAF does not have this kind of standing. Even the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha cannot issue an apology without a very broad discussion on this subject! In the Catholic world, it is the apologies issues by Vatican that are meanigful. Definitely HAF is not in that position, but considering its stature and proximity to the US Government, its issue of apology, while dismissed by Hindus, can easily be picked up by the power centers and vested interests.
2. HAF has bypassed several important steps (see “Recommendations”) that are necessary to address the subject of discrimination and caste in India.
3. HAF has given the impression of endorsement from the Hindu Acharyas and Religious Leaders of India. HAF has used their statements without giving them the full benefit of the scope, content and objectives of the report.
4. Either in the main report in its addenda, by emphasizing the endorsements of individuals and organizations who primarily work in the US at the expense of those doing grassroots work in India, HAF is de-legitimizing its efforts in this area.
5. HAF has downplayed the violence caused by the nefarious activities of institutions like DFN and DK.
I understand that “caste” is the stick that the US Congress uses to delegitimize some of the work HAF is doing. To apologize is not the appropriate response! If caste and caste-based discrimination is a subject HAF seriously wants to address, here are somerecommendations for HAF to consider:
1. Approach the topic in several phases. As an example:
a. Origin of the word “caste”, and the epistemological ramifications of using this word.
b. Establishing that discrimination is not scripturally sanctioned.
c. The impact of Mughal rule and Colonization in the rigidification of a flexible and holistic social order.
d. The historical role of vested interests (including colonial British) in associating discrimination with Hindu Dharma.
e. Study & document the on-going monumental work done by hundreds if not thousands of Hindu organizations in India to uplift the weaker sections of society.
f. Study and publish a report expose the Christian and foreign control of all media in India, because of which all the above work goes unreported.
g. Expose the hidden agenda of all anti-Hindu outfits that masquerade as emancipators of Dalits.
2. Have an honest dialog with the Hindu Acharyas, Hindu religious leaders and other experts of India - What confusions arise when using the words caste, varna and jaati; how should these terms be defined; what is the best approach to address this subject so to bring clarity to readers on this contentious topic; how to effectively counter the trap that Hindus fall into when the word “caste” is used, etc.
3. Retract the report in its present form.
We would like HAF to continue to spearhead activities that highlights the strengths of Hindu Dharma, address misportrayal of Hindu Dharma in US textbooks, stop the misappropriation of dharmic concepts and ideas, counter Hindu defamation, and engage the second generation Hindu community. HAF should consider itself blessed to be in this position.
Releasing the report in its present form without significant changes in the scope, methodology and intention would be construed as a slap in the face of the thousands of Hindus organizations and communities working intensely to genuinely improve the lives of the disadvantaged communities in India, will play into the hands of the forces whose agenda is to break and nullify Hindu Dharma , and has a very high potential to undo the goodwill that HAF has generated from the World Hindu community.
Best Regards,Jayakumar S. Ammangudi
Arsha Vidya Satsanga
From: Rishi Bhutada <rishiAThafsite.org>
To: Jayendra Ganguli <jsganguli@yahoo.com>; jkumar64ATsbcglobal.net
Cc: Jay Kansara <jayAThafsite.org>; Aseem Shukla <aseem@hafsite.org>
Sent: Wed, December 22, 2010 10:26:33 PM
Subject: Thank you for the call
Namaste Jayendraji and Jayakumarji,
–
Rishi Bhutada
Member, Executive Council
Hindu American Foundation
Date: Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 7:06 PM
Subject: Cast in relapse or withdrawal? English or vernacular?
To:
Unfortunately, portions of the 166 page report have also been taken out of context by some and used to inflame passions and pressure and intimidate HAF and our many vocal supporters. This type of criticism was unexpected and is wholly counterproductive.
What does HAF propose to do to create a wider circle for consultation?With a wider circle of knowledgeable persons and those who have worked on this for decades?Are there plans to make the withdrawal or revision and publish the revisions or changes in the vernacular?How does HAF propose to organize for this effort?Or, does HAF think wider consultation will be counter-productive and that the ongoing revision of the HAF is cast in muddle since 10 new points do not jibe the report content. So is the Exec. Summary out of tune with the largely unrevised report.Where is the promised chapter (or is it Appendix?) on Lessons learnt from experience of Hindus with defamatory references to Hinduism in elementary school textbooks in state schools?Further comments/suggestions for HAF consideration:
Remove all tone or suggestion of apology from hindus, which no advocacy group can claim to have adhikara to offer. HAF is free to apologize for their personal side for all the human rights abuses they inflicted but do not have the competence or mandate to judge all hindus. If any apology is due from an advocacy group, it is to the Hindu samajam.Remove all dravidian = dalit suggestions. Dravidianism is not to be supported as part of helping harijans. So drop EVR heroism.Make clear that no hindu scripture is being challenged or implied that it is to be rewritten or amended. Haf lacks competence to play Ved Vyasa or Manu role. Make clear that it advocates solutions to discrimination WITHIN hinduism’s own existing resources.Make clear by explicit NAMING that DFN, World Vision, USCIRF are illegetimate bodies interfering with india’s internal affairs for their own nefarious agendas. This last point is critical to make explicitly to demonstrate that haf intends to not sellout to such entities’ pressures no matter what.Let WAVES or other wider group of scholars develop a solid report on jati, varna, kula, gotra, abhyudayam and nihs’reyas as goal of dharma, and get such groups to explain policy alternatives. Let hdas or waves or other hindu body (maybe sangh has suggestions) formulate the policy and HAF should ONLY advocate such policies made by others and not try to make up its own hindu policies. Clearly, report writing of a thousand year old tradition which has made the hindu samajam what it is is not HAF’s forte.In fine, let HAF focus on advocacy. HAF should not become a policy-making body for Hindu samajam.
Spin-doctoring FAQs on caste (HAF)
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Nagendra S. Rao <nagendrasraATgmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 2:27 PM
Subject: FAQs on HAF website
http://www.hafsite.org/media/pr/not-cast-caste-faqs
I have read the HAF FAQ in relation to the Caste Report. I don’t know about other people, I find it lucid, and for the most part reasonable and convincing. However, the FAQ is one thing, the details of the associated Caste Report is another. The devil is in the details. Having said that and started with the positive, on to what we find objectionable about the report and the obstructionist and dilatory tactics that HAF has been using in supporting it.
“look how these Hindus went ballistic against each other when one of them tried to argue that caste-based discrimination is wrong!”
Firstly, please do not put words in our mouths. That is an insult to your perspicacity and ours. I notice that HAF has shown a consistent pattern of trying to do this when it thinks it can get away with it. When it’s feet are held to the fire, and it has no options, then it backtracks or retracts. SOP that we all learned in Wharton Mass Communication 300, and used to make a living. It is also known to all agit-prop groups. I am deeply saddened – I thought HAF was a little better than such political hack organizations into spin doctoring.
Secondly, who ever has argued here that caste discrimination is right or does not exist? Please name one person amongst those on this dialogue. This is another instance of HAF agit-prop dilatory tactics. If you have law on your side pound the law, if you have facts on your side pound the facts – if you have neither on your side pound the table. What we are saying and KV has articulated so well is the way you are going about trying to remedy this discrimination is dead wrong. It is counter productive, is incredibly damaging to the Hindu cause, and we won’t stand for it. Now we can both go ring-a-ring-roses around this till the cows come home!!!
We are not going to give room for spin doctoring – and yes we are going to stop quoting sastra of which the aam admi has little knowledge and even less interest. Ye are forcing us to treat this as a politically contentious PR play by a PR organization with a non-inclusive and divisive agenda.
The only concern is that if this happens on a public forum, our common adversaries, the missionaries, DFN, etc. will really have great ammunition for their wars—”look how these Hindus went ballistic against each other when one of them tried to argue that caste-based discrimination is wrong!”
Repeating this ad nauseam will not make the fact go away that it is HAF which went public with its report in the first instance and trying to make it a fait accompli. This is again standard Goebbels technique – we all know this and have practiced it in our professional lives. And now HAF is appealing to our better natures for discussions to take place in privacy to cover up its misfeasance? Firstly, privacy is impossible now – pray why did HAF not think of all this before stonewalling and turning down all attempts to negotiate with it? It seems Rajiv has been trying to do this for months.
Karna asks Arjuna on the battlefield in the Mahabharata, “Give me time – my chariot wheel is stuck”. Arjuna is inclined to accommodate Karna. Krishna promptly asks Karna, “Where were all such ideas of chivalry O Karna when ye surrounded and slew Abhimanyu who was a mere boy in age compared to ye”. Krishna turns to Arjuna and says, “Show him no mercy and finish it now”.
I trust HAF will appreciate the allegorical and scriptural from our sacred texts and not try manipulative allegations that we are advocating some form of jihad or physical slaughter against them. But one never knows with agit-prop organizations and methods. Further, traditional scriptural knowledge does not seem to be one of your strong points, though this is critical to be even indifferent, 3rd echelon smritikaras.
In the same way, we at HAF may have to live with a vocal Hindu community that disagrees with our stance in this one instance.
We disagree with ye in several other instances too – not just this one instance. I don’t want to go into a litany on that. It is just that this one instance is so egregious. And ye will have to do MUCH more than live with it. It is / we are not going to go away. INCIDENTALLY WE ALSO AGREE WITH YE ON SEVERAL THINGS AS WELL.
I think KV has pointed all this out very politely but very firmly. He is also saying unambiguously, ‘vijaya prapti na tu vir gati’ as I did earlier. ‘You just don’t get it’ as they said in the dialogue on the Clarence Roberts trial.
Finally, as I said to RM and others, we would be pleased if you or anyone else wrote a report on caste-based discrimination from a different pro-Hindu perspective. Our community can, should and does have a plurality of positions on this issue. Even on this thread, we have Infinity Foundation, CAPEEM, WAVES, VHP and HSS represented. Any of those organizations could sponsor such a report and Balramji has mentioned that WAVES is working on such a project.
Thank you for your generosity, but we do not really need your monarchical assent to do that!!! This is a free country – one of the great things about this great nation – why the protesting students built a Statue of Liberty in Beijing. Sadly, this is another instance where hubris has become so much of a second nature to HAF, that ye are unable to even recognize it. You are claiming / implying that you represent all Hindus – YOU DO NOT REPRESENT ALL HINDUS. You are also doing / have done incredible damage to the Hindu cause. KV has repeated this ad nauseam. Rajiv has said it, Aditi has said it, and so have I.
Your actions have to be given the widest possible publicity so that the leftist / Marxist / Christian evangelistic right wing / Muslim groups / other entities hostile to the Hindu cause understand that if they take up your cause / material they are going to have a severe and uncompromising push back without quarter – that ye are tainted with a black mark amongst a large number of traditional and influential Hindus. This will ensure – in time – that the White House / Congress / whoever does not wrap itself all round you as the representative icon of modern Hinduism.
This is all going to be on the internet connected with HAF, and on numberless blogs. It can and will pop up in association with your name when anyone Googles it. And we know how to make sure that these things come to the top in a Google search. You see two can play at that game. The mainstream and the immigrant Indian Hindu community will from now on get both sides of the picture and ye will not have a free ride anymore – either with mainstream America or with temples and other Hindu organizations in the US / other parts of the world and in India. It is sad that it had to come to this.
HAF could even reference such a paper as a “dissenting opinion” within our report or website.
These noises to be conciliatory when ye have tried to make things a fait accompli cuts no ice. Thank you, but we have no intention of producing a report which ye will position / spin doctor to show how liberal / ecumenical / inclusive ye are. And then the dissenting piece will be buried. YE HAVE NOT SHOWN YE ARE TRULY LIBERAL / ECUMENICAL / INCLUSIVE, SO FAR. Ye seem to forget that we are not some unworldly sadhus sitting in the back of beyond in India on whom ye can put a topi as the Indian colloquialism goes. It is sad that it has come to this. There have been disagreements in the past but never something which left one with such an adversarial feeling.
We are right here and we have played the same games – on occasion with a little more smoothness than ye seem to be showing. For us ‘ye tho dharam ki baat hai – hum kabhi chodenge nahin’ – this is a matter of Dharma for us we will never give up on this. Sadly, it would seem that ye feel the same way. That is the worst sort of predicament.
HAF will move on to other things where we hope you will agree and even work with us again.
Certainment. Mais oui, mon frère. If ye had stuck to your knitting on the political aspects of Hinduism, c.f. Taking the Name of Yoga back, we would all be with you, holding your coats. I have written in the past admiring your courage and work there. The signs of wisdom and maturity are when you know what you know, and you also know what you don’t know. Disaster follows when you don’t know what you don’t know and you don’t even have a clue about it. It is when ye start getting aspirations / delusions of greatness that ye will do something on the religious side of Hinduism – about which ye have neither much depth of understanding nor much learning – ye get into trouble and fall flat on your faces as ye seem on the way to doing now. I had mentioned the dangers of this and cautioned Mihir more than once when I was on the Board. Somewhere I may still have the old e-mails. Ye have gone ahead to put your feet in your mouths I don’t know with whose bad advice – Navya Shastra / and or other external groups – it does not matter. When ye started glorifying EVR / Periyar as a respected Hindu reformer, that was the last straw. Ye have created the mess which has now to be cleaned up – with you or without you.
Caste is not the lynchpin project for this foundation.
Alas, if only that were true and believable. Everything about the way ye have gone about things seems to belie that. There has been rigidity / stonewalling / unwillingness to compromise / shades of prevarication / attempts at railroading. If it really was / is not your lynchpin why all this insane hurry to get it out and make it a fait accompli. Why not allow time to get more inclusive buy-in. It cannot have escaped your notice – you cannot be oblivious – that almost none of the authoritative sampradayas which have been there for hundreds or thousands of years has explicitly backed your approach. And they are the ones who really carry credibility with most of traditional religious India which does not speak English / did not go to Harvard / does not work at an investment bank, and incidentally those in firm opposition to you here. It is only now after ye have been beaten over the head about this issue that I find noises about trying to be inclusive. Anyway, this is still welcome.
In closing, from the changes in language ye have started making we do not believe that ye have malefic intent – au contraire. Just that ye are ill advised. However, there is still the matter of important matters of content.
Since I have faith in the Iswaratva of Iswara I shall pray that good sense permeate us all so that we get out of this mess – AND I AM NOT BEING FACETIOUS!
Shambhave Namah!
Nagendra
______________________________
When caste was not a bad word
Religious apartheid in modern India
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: rakesh bahadur <rakbahATgmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 7:51 AM
Subject: Re: Religious Apartheid in Modern India by Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy
Namaskar
I want to share one point, that the list of SC/ST/OBCs is not fixed. This list is continuously expanding.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/india/news/article_1355133.php/Apex_court_frowns_at_expanding_backward_castes_list
The perpetrators of discrimination becoem victicms of discrimination as soon as a new list is released.
A case in point is agitation by jats for reservation. They were kshatriyas for centuries but now agitating to be declared OBCs (http://www.hindustantimes.com/CM-supports-Jats-OBC-demand/Article1-557653.aspx)
Story is same with Gujjars in Rajasthan (http://www.tribuneindia.com/2010/20101223/main1.htm)
In Satyug, everyone was Brahmin. But in Kalyug, thanks to GOI, everyone (general category) will become lower caste.
Rakesh
The way forward on the recent HAF controversy
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97ATgmail.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 6:19 AM
Subject: Re: The way forward on the recent HAF controversy
To: rajivmalhotra2007ATgmail.com
Cc: Ramdas Lamb <rlambAThawaii.rr.com>, BAL RAM SINGH <bsinghATumassdDOT>, “Nagendra S. Rao” <nagendrasraoATgmail.com>, rakesh bhargava <rakbahATgmail.com>, Aditi bannerjee <banerjeeaATgmail.com>, Gautam Sen <gautam.senATgmail.com>,raviATmedhajournal.com, Dwaipayan Lahiri <dwaiATmedhajournal.com>, Mihir Meghani <MihirAThafsite.org>, Swaminathan Venkataraman <swaminathan.venkataramanATgmail.com>, “R. Venkatanarayanan” <daps2322ATgmail.com>, Saradindu Mukherji <s_mukherji1ATrediffmail.com>, Ashok Chowgule <ashokvcATchowgulegoa.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaATgmail.com>, Narain Kataria <KatariaNATaol.com>, Abhaya Asthana <abhayajiATgmail.com>, Kalavai Venkat <kalavai.venkatATgmail.com>, karigar – ravi joshi <karigar01ATgmail.com>, Vasu Murthy <thoughtsrlifeATgmail.com>, Aseem Shukla <aseem.shuklaAThinduamericanfoundation.org>, Suhag Shukla <suhag.shuklaAThinduamericanfoundation.org>, Ved Nanda <nandasATearthlink.net>, Kejrival Sashi <sashiATmetint.com>, Dhiru shah atlanta <SIARAMATaol.com>, Subhash Kak <kakATece.lsuDOT>, subash razdan <subashrazdanATyahoo.com>, swami jyotirmayananda <swamijyotiATgmail.com>, Tadatmananda Swami <SwamiTATarshabodha.org>, tarun vijay <tarun.vijayATgmail.com>, S Gurumurthy <guruATgurumurthy.net>, Kanchan Banerjee <kbkaliATyahoo.com>
Aseem ji, Mihir ji,
I ask HAF to respond to this suggestion: Consider setting up a wider circle of knowledgeable persons and those with practical grass roots experience over the last several decades in India in the subject matter so that HAF can revise their half-baked report.
One instance of half-baking is the eulogy of EVR who had said: if one meets a snake and a brahmana, hit the brahmana first.
I have already sent 6 documents related to CAPEEM lawsuit. Rakesh has sent in his spreadsheet focusing on arguments accepted in Fairfax Textbooks case to remove defamatory references in re caste in textbooks for elementary grade children.
I hope HAF report is NOT cast in concrete and will be withdrawn as suggested by many. For reference, I append two articles which should find a place in any discussion on caste or any revision of HAF foray:
Sanjeev Nayyar: When caste was not a bad word
Moorthy Muthuswamy: Religious apartheid in modern India
I request HAF to respond to these two articles and incorporate them in any revision/s. I am sure HAF members are entitled to ask for transparency in explaining the ongoing revisions to the flawed HAF report.
dhanyavaadaah.
kalyanaraman
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Sanjeev Nayyar <esamskritiATsuryaconsulting.net>
Date: Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:35 PM
Subject: A different view on Caste. My 2007 article Hindustan Times
To: HARAN BR <haran.brATgmail.com>, kalyan97ATgmail.com,mihirAThafsite.org, aseemAThafsite.org
Namaskar,
Kaveri Bazmi in India Today called Karna a dalit. Baba Ramadevi is a Yadav like Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Yadav so he is a Dalit. Oh forgot Lord Krishna was a Yadav so he is also a Dalit. First the British and now the Yadav’s/Congress/sections of the media are out to divide India vertically.
My article below gives a different perspective on caste. Gandhian Dharampal reproduced survey reports done by the British around 1830 to state that the largest nos of scholars in schools in Madras Presidency were Sudras http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Indigeneous-Education-in-the-18th-century-1.aspx.
with regards
sanjeev
When caste was not a bad word
By Sanjeev Nayyar. Article appeared in Hindustan Times, Mumbai on June 4, 2007.
http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/When-caste-was-not-a-bad-word-1.aspx
Were caste equations always as bad as they are today? Not quite. There were always castes but they were not backward.
Now that the Supreme Court has referred the matter of 27% reservations to a Constitutional Bench it might be worthwhile revisiting certain historical truths. Proponents of the 27% reservation for OBCs argue that reservations would help them overcome centuries of discrimination! However, if such animosity really existed between the forwards and backwards, how could the Indian Civilization have thrived for over 5,000 years?
A noted Gandhian, Dharampal visited British & Indian archives and reproduced reports of Surveys undertaken by the British in Bengal, Punjab and Madras Presidency (1800-1830). According to Collectors reports reviewed by Governor Sir Thomas Munro on 10/3/1826, of the 30,211 male school students in Madras Presidency 20% were Brahmins and Chettris, 9% were Vaishyas,50% were Sudras, 6% were Muslims and others were 15%. Madras Presidency then consisted of areas that fall in modern day Tamil Nadu, A.P, Orissa, Kerala and Karnataka. Another report by J Dent, Secretary, Fort Geroge dated 21/2/1825 stated that out of 1,88,680 scholars in all collectorates of Madras Presidency Brahmins were 23% while Sudras constituted 45%.
Startling as it may sound, these percentages establish that Sudras not Brahmins comprised the majority of students and scholars. How & Why do the Backward Classes find themselves in the situation they are today?
Before British rule, traditionally, educational institutions were funded by revenue contributions made by the community and State. About one third of the total revenue (from agriculture & sea ports) was assigned for the requirements of social & cultural infrastructure (including education). This system stayed mainly intact through all previous political turmoils. The British, however, increased the quantum of land revenue and adversely changed the terms of payment for the community. They centralized collection of revenue, leaving hardly any revenue to pay for social and cultural infrastructure.
Further, the means of the manufacturing classes (small scale enterprises or SME in today’s parlance) were greatly diminished by the introduction of European goods. Craftsmen especially those engaged in the making of cloth, manufacture and mining of metals, construction work were through fiscal and other devices reduced to a state of homelessness.
Sapped for funds, educational institutions and manufacturing classes became history, leading to grave consequences. One, it obliterated literacy and knowledge amongst the Indian people. Two, it destroyed the Indian social balance in which, traditionally, persons from all sections of society appear to have received a significant degree of schooling. Three, this destruction along with economic plunder led to great deterioration in the status, socio-economic conditions and personal dignity of those, now known as scheduled castes; and to a lesser degree, that of the vast peasant majority encompassed by the term ‘backward castes’.
From about the end of the 19th century, various factors began to attempt a reversal of the results of British policy. This led to what are now known as backward caste movements. The manner, in which their objectives are presented however, seems to suggest that the ‘backward’ status they are struggling against is some ancient phenomenon. In reality, however, their cultural and economic backwardness (as distinct from their ritualistic status on specific occasions) is post 1800, and what basically all such movements are attempting to achieve is the restoration of the position, status, and rights of these peoples prior to 1800.
Dharampal wrote in ‘Rediscovering India’, “For the British, as perhaps for some others before them, caste has been a great obstacle, in fact, an unmitigated evil not because the British believed in casteless ness or subscribed to non-hierarchical system but because it stood in the way of their breaking Indian society, hindered the process of atomization, and made the task of conquest and governance more difficult”.
The interest in caste peaked around 1891 when the census came out with what were termed as Index of Castes. The word ‘caste’ is of Spanish origin and fails to capture the meaning of the Indian term, “jati,” which more properly translated as “community.” Jati in traditional India promoted and preserved diversity and multiculturalism by allotting every jati a particular space and role in society so that no jati would be appropriated or dominated by another. America, which has long glorified the ideal of a “melting pot” of one assimilated culture, is now coming to see the value of the “salad bowl” model, in which different cultures co-exist in harmony. The epitome of this model was the Indian jati system, revealing that our ancient practices are relevant to the modern world. Moreover, the jati system was integral to the survival of the Indian nation: in Swami Vivekananda’s words: “Caste is an imperfect institution no doubt. But if it had not been for caste, you would have had no Sanskrit books to study. This caste made walls, around which all sorts of invasions rolled and surged but found it impossible to breakthrough.”
So, the widespread notion that discrimination in opportunity for education existed for millennia is a dangerous misconception that clouds our policies and threatens the real progress of the backwards castes.
The logical next steps are that, one, caste based reservations must come with a sunset clause as was envisaged in the Indian Constitution. Two, since economic deprivation has led to backwardness, economic backwardness should be the basis of reservation. The apex court has said that the creamy layer in OBCs must be denied reservations.
The reservations policy and caste-based politics of the last sixty years have managed to make people more aware of and narrowly identified by their caste, rather than focusing on true social and economic integration. Instead of increasing supply of education facilities, successive Governments have over regulated the sector, stifling its growth. Under the guise of protecting SME’s, government policy has made them less efficient and does not allow economies of scale.
The words Caste and Class have become conflated together, when in reality they refer to different phenomena. Also, the nomenclature used to describe the backward classes keeps changing. In the 1890s they were called The Depressed Classes. In the early 1930’s, Gandhi named them Harijans. The Government of India Act 1935 introduced the words Scheduled Castes for the first time. Since the 1990s, the word Dalit has come into prominence.
Jats are a backward community in Rajasthan but a very powerful community in neighboring Punjab. Is there a comprehensive national definition of who constitutes an OBC?
There are multiple solutions to the Reservation problem that need to be pursued simultaneously. One, Government should focus on primary education only. Two, it must lay down a transparent regulatory framework for higher education. This would increase investment in education across various sectors. Three; it must lay emphasis on vocational training that would make a graduate employable. It should support institutions that provide short term courses in retail, financial planning, analytics and pharma. Once supply is enhanced and identity based reservation eclipsed, India will have an egalitarian educational system where the only affirmative action will be financial assistance to economically weaker students.
With so much emphasis on education I remember Mark Twain’s words, “I do not allow my schooling to interfere with my education.”
Sanjeev Nayyar is a Management Consultant and founder www.esamskriti.com.
—–Original Message—–
From: sanjeev
Sent: Thu, Dec 2, 2010 10:46 am
Subject: Religious Apartheid in Modern India by Dr Moorthy Muthuswamy
Namaskar,
Religious Apartheid in Modern India: Transforming of a Civilisation
The Muslims ruled India for hundreds of years, the Christians for about 100 years yet before Bharat became independent the British imposed the concept of Majority vs Minority. Post 1947 the concept of Special Rights to Minorities came into being. One of them is the right to adminster their own Educational Institutions. The Indian Constitution did not define the word ‘Minority’ though. As a result today everybody wants to be classified as a Minority. This provision has allowed the Church to create a web of educational institutions across the country and wield influence far in excess of the 2.5% Christian population in India. The majority community in no country offers such privileges.
Thought provoking article with lots of factual data.
Religious Apartheid in Modern India- Transforming of a Civilisation
Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy November 2010
At long last India has arrived – it has finally emerged after a thousand year alien rule first under the invaders from West Asia, and later under the British colonisers.
Soon after India’s independence in 1947, thanks to the foresighted ventures of establishing new educational institutions in engineering, technology and management, and infrastructure development, wealth creation and the accompanying socio-economic development became feasible.
The constitution of India prepared in the 1940s reflects the land where literacy rate stood at 12 percent[i] – and the one ruled by an alien power, the British colonisers. A constitution created under these circumstances – although much influenced by the British counterpart – was going to have certain quirks or flaws. One such flaw, as explained here, has since led to egregious religious apartheid practices, and more.
For any emergent or modern nation, it would indeed be downright shameful, and even outright inconceivable to blatantly discriminate against its citizens, especially its majority community. This reminds one of the white apartheid-rule in South Africa.
One may be surprised to learn that in India, of all nations, similar practices are taking place.
Recently (2008), St. Stephen’s College, an elite Christian missionary-controlled higher education institution located in New Delhi shocked many by declaring that it was setting up a quota system that allots 50 percent of its student enrolment for the Christians.[ii] For a nation used to coveting college education in elite institutions, the news was devastating:
Even as getting into this [St. Stephen’s] college is so difficult and now if they cut down the seats for general category, where will we go? This is really unfair.[iii]
So said a young Delhi college hopeful named Arya Pakriti, presumed to be a member of the majority Hindu community.
A stunning fact: About 95 percent of the college’s expenses are paid by the taxpayers, with the majority community contributing most of it.[iv] Interestingly, according to the 2001 census figures, Christian population in New Delhi constitutes just one percent.[v] Indeed, Indian taxpayers appear to be subsidizing the selective empowerment of Christians in St. Stephen’s College at the expense of deserving non-Christians.
A Supreme Court ruling based on Article 30 of the Indian Constitution was used by the St. Stephen’s management to justify these religious discriminations.[vi]
In 1993, the Government of India notified that the Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists and Zoroastrians (Parsis) are considered “minority.”[vii] Article 30 of the Indian constitution allows religious minority communities regardless of their socio-economic status to allot up to 50 percent of student enrolment and employment for members of their own communities in educational institutions administered by them even if the institutions are getting aid from the government.[viii] The definition of minority applies at the national level – meaning that in the Indian states of Mizoram and Punjab where Christians and Sikhs are majorities respectively, and the Hindus are a minority, Article 30 still applies to the Christians and Sikhs in these states as minorities, and the Hindus there as majority.
Christian minorities are also, not surprisingly, getting preferential employment in missionary-controlled educational institutions, again justified on the basis of Article 30. For example, the percentages of teaching staff belonging to the Christian faith in missionary-controlled, but taxpayer-funded American College, Union Christian College and St. Xavier’s College are 66, 83 and 42 respectively.[ix] But the percentages of Christians in the state of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Maharashtra, where these colleges are located are just 7, 19 and 1 respectively,[x] clearly suggesting the role of religious discrimination in hiring. It appears that these lawful discriminatory practices encompass just about all Christian denominations and cut across the nation. The temptation to discriminate is driven by the highly beneficial manner of the reservations as well as by their lawful nature.
If the percentage of missionary-controlled educational institutions is proportional to the Christian minority population percentage, these discriminations, while hardly justifiable for a nation that calls itself “secular,” are unlikely to have an adverse impact. However, here’s the gist of the problem: the 2.3 percent (2001 census figures)[xi] Christian minorities control over 22 percent[xii] (almost ten times their population percentage) of all educational institutions in India (i.e., over 40,000 of them[xiii])
In combination with Article 30, the above statistics state the obvious: The Christians are a privileged minority in India, with the government’s resources – inadvertently, it seems – allocated for their preferred empowerment. Not surprisingly, literacy rate of the Christians in India stands at 80 percent,[xiv] compared to 65 percent[xv] overall. With the missionaries providing nearly 30 percent of the healthcare services in India,[xvi] employment possibilities for those who convert to Christianity are significantly more than those of non-Christians. In addition, the minority status of missionary-controlled institutions helps them get tax, land allotment and many other benefits.[xvii]
Indeed, one would be hard-pressed to justify any claims of the Christians being an under-privileged minority, as a coalition of Christian community organisations itself noted in a recent press release: “Currently the job share percentage of Christians in services like teachers, nursing, clerical and junior level CEO [Chief Executive Officer] is more than their numerical percentage.” The same press release went on to note in the next sentence that, “This is due to their [Christians’] sincerity, honesty and better education,”[xviii] while regrettably ignoring the fact that Article 30 has already granted the Christian community significant reservations and other opportunities.
The magnitude and scale of these discriminations are staggering. If each missionary-controlled institution has on the average a total of 300 students and staff, and if it discriminates on the average against 10 non-Christian student enrolments and youth employments every year, it translates to about a quarter million discriminatory acts every year. For instance, St. Stephen’s, which has an incoming class of about 400 students every year,[xix] allots nearly 200 of these seats exclusively for Christians – i.e., nearly 200 acts of discrimination every year.
It is pertinent to contrast here the scheme implemented in South Africa by the ruling white minority during the apartheid era. The black majority was deliberately denied education and employment opportunities through a racial system designed to favour the whites.[xx] This, in a nutshell denied the black majority empowerment in their land. Of course, in the case of South Africa, the white ruling class’s apartheid practices were deliberate and by design, in order to keep the black majority away from power. However, in the case of India, the egregious religious discriminations are an unintended consequence of Article 30 of the Indian constitution. Or so it seems.
World over, people began to raise their voices against the cruelty and immorality of the apartheid practices in South Africa. But in India, the larger-than-life implications of similar practices have yet to be realised – and, let alone be addressed. Indeed, best-selling author Ramachandra Guha himself an alumni of St. Stephen’s gets it only half right when he calls the reservation policies of his former college, “unethical.”[xxi]
The discriminatory policies induced by Article 30 of the Indian constitution, arguably, violate Articles 23 and 26 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN Charter) to which India is a signatory.[xxii]Specifically, “the right to work, to free choice of employment,” mentioned in Article 23 and, “higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit,” mentioned in Article 26 appear to be violated. Therefore, Article 30-induced discriminations constitute human rights violations as well.
For all the talk of its emergence, India is one of the most impoverished nations on the planet. A 2006 family health survey conducted there found that 46 percent of its children under the age of three were underweight, even surpassing 28 percent for children under the age of five in sub-Saharan countries. Anaemia, a condition reflecting malnutrition was found to increase among Indian children to 79 percent, up from 74 percent in 1999.[xxiii] The extent of malnutrition is such that nearly two million Indian children every year – i.e., about six thousand children every day – die from it.[xxiv]
The Hindu majority has become under-privileged in part due to centuries of alien rule in which they were shut out of power and were discriminated against. It is indeed true that at the present time the Muslim minorities are relatively under-privileged compared to the Hindu majority.[xxv] Even still, one has to wonder how much of that is self-inflicted, considering the well-established reluctance of the Muslim community in India to embrace modern education[xxvi] by choosing madarasa (Muslim religious school) education. The regressive evolution of the Muslim majority Pakistan,[xxvii] despite sharing much with India also substantiates the role of self-infliction.
By their own accounts, the Christian minorities are easily among the most empowered in India. The other sizeable minority, the Sikhs, are also better off compared to the majority community, as most of them live in the fertile state of Punjab. In this context, Article 30 is not only hard to justify, but it can be seen to extend hardships the majority community underwent for centuries, albeit this time by successive governments it helped to elect.
Education and employment are necessary paths to empowerment and a ticket out of poverty. India’s own constitution-induced discriminations, that allow religious preferences to dictate over merit, deny unfairly a path out of poverty for millions of innocent children and youths. These discriminations show the sheer absurdity of the Right to Education Act[xxviii] passed recently by the Indian parliament, as many of the best schools and colleges in the nation are controlled by the missionaries who discriminate against the nearly 95 percent of the nation’s population as a matter of policy.
In the long run, what is at stake is more than India’s retarded development or egregious human rights violations.
The long-term implications of Article 30-induced religious discriminations and missionaries’ disproportional control of educational institutions can be studied by applying “Dynamic Models of Segregation” developed by the Nobel Prize-winning economist Thomas Schelling.[xxix] He originally showed that a small preference for one’s neighbours to be of the same color could lead to total segregation. The positive feedback cycle of segregation–prejudice–in-group preference can be found in most human populations, with great variation in what are regarded as meaningful differences: Gender, age, race, ethnicity, language, sexual preference and religion. Significantly, he showed that once a cycle of separation-prejudice-discrimination-separation has begun, it has a self-sustaining momentum. The segregation process has the tendency to pick up momentum overtime from trickle to exodus, just like very rapidly increasing viewership of a successful movie, as the word of mouth gets around.
Dr. Schelling’s theory, as it is applied to the religious conversion of the majority community in India involves replacing separation by conversion (to Christianity), and prejudice by lower social status (due to the denial of education and employment opportunities in missionary-controlled elite institutions) and welcoming efforts of the proselytizing missionaries.
This conversion “version” of segregation may have already happened in certain regions of India. The northeast Indian states of Nagaland and Mizoram had less than a 1 percent Christian population percentage at the beginning of the past century.[xxx] However, by the 1991 census year, the Christian populations in these two states had increased to almost 90 percent.[xxxi] Unlike in most of the rest of India, the missionaries were pioneers in bringing education and other civic amenities to these under-developed regions. Adding this to the missionaries’ overwhelming control of educational institutions there probably led to the rapid conversion of the natives.
However, Christianization of India as a whole has not occurred at this fast pace because in the rest of India, for many decades, the upper caste Hindus were better educated than the Christian minorities and the communities there in general have developed more than the ones in Mizoram or Nagaland. The Hindu majority also established and ran many educational institutions. And importantly, the missionary-controlled educational institutions, baring a quota of few percent, admirably kept the enrolment open for everyone, regardless of the background. As a result, until 2001, for almost fifty years, the Christian minority population percentage in all of India trickled very slowly upwards to about 2.3.
But then, all of a sudden, Christian population percentage surged dramatically higher.
Operation World which tracks the growth of Christianity around the globe lists up-to-date figures for India in its website. According to the website the annual Christian population growth rate in India at the present time shows a big jump at 3.7 percent compared to the overall annual population growth rate of 1.44 percent.[xxxii] Accordingly, while the Christian population percentage was just 2.3 percent in 2001,[xxxiii]it has more than doubled rapidly to 5.84 percent as of 2010.[xxxiv] Whereas the annual Christian population growth rate during the period from 1991 to 2001 was only 2.26 percent[xxxv] compared to the overall annual population growth rate of 2.13 percent[xxxvi] during the same period.
So, why has the Christian population percentage in India increased so dramatically during the past decade?
A graph shown in Operation World’s website reveals the reason that the dramatic growth in Christian population percentage is mostly due to conversion from Hinduism, as reflected by a drop in Hindu population percentage (note that the Muslim population percentage increased during this period, suggesting that the Muslims are not converting to Christianity in large numbers).[xxxvii] In the early 1990s, in a landmark ruling the Indian Supreme Court, on the basis of Article 30, allowed minority-controlled educational institutions to allot up to 50 percent of their seats on the basis of faith.[xxxviii] While in the immediate aftermath the Christian minority reservation percentages in missionary-controlled institutions remained small, over the next decade they increased to reach the ceiling limit of 50 percent. It took time for this new trend to sink in; impact of these reservations on demographics probably did not materialize until about the year 2000. Now, the trend appears to be full-blown in the form of a rapid rise in Christian population percentage.
The Supreme Court’s decision and the willingness of the missionaries to discriminate by taking away up to 50 percent of the enrolments in over 20 percent of educational institutions controlled by them meant that it is disadvantageous to be a Hindu and far more beneficial to be a Christian in the secular and democratic nation of India. This is particularly true for lower income majority community families with young children and youths in need of education and employment.
It is useful to quantify the implications of this decision. Assuming on the average a total of 300 students and staff in an institution, for the 40,000 institutions controlled by the missionaries, a grand total of 12 million seats is reached. Hence, a disturbing possibility has arisen as a result of the honoured court’s decision: It has empowered the missionaries to lawfully deny non-Christians from a few millions to about 6 million student enrolments and staff employments every year in institutions likely funded by the government.
Governments both at the central and the state levels have setup an employment/education quota system for under-privileged lower caste Hindus in government and in the public sector units, and in all public and private educational institutions, except in the minority-controlled educational institutions.[xxxix] Admittedly, minorities such as the Christians and to some extent the Muslims have been largely excluded from this quota system; but then, so are the forward caste Hindus who are numerically more than both Christians and Muslims put together.[l] Still, the missionaries’ vastly disproportional control of educational institutions appears to give them the ability to selectively influence empowerment of communities on the basis of religion – and at the expense of taxpayers. The following examples elucidate this point.
Post 1990s, the religious apartheid practices permitted by Article 30 of India’s constitution have played a primary role in devastating the majority community economically in the southern Indian state of Kerala by marginalising their educational opportunities. The article has given minority-controlled institutions in Kerala legal power to discriminate and to regulate educational access at the expense of the taxpayers. According to Indian academic C. Issac:
[The] 55 per cent of Hindu population of Kerala controls 11.11 per cent of the state’s bank deposits. On the other hand, the 19 per cent Christian community commands 33.33 per cent and 25 per cent Muslim population retains 55.55 per cent…. The education is one of the major sectors where the organised strength of the minorities in Kerala is used in a covert manner. In this sector the majority [Hindu] community as well as the government together control only 11.11 percent, on the other hand, the church controls 55.55 percent and Muslim religious organisations 33.33 percent of all institutions. At present the professional education sector of Kerala is almost under the full control of the minorities. About 12,000 engineering enrolments and 300 medicine enrolments are in the minority institutions and they are fully controlling the admissions. At present 60 percent of the enrolments in paramedical courses are controlled by the organised minority religious leadership…. In this situation the successive governments are functioning as mere onlookers…. A lion’s share of these aided [government-funded] schools is under minority management.[li]
Can a parent belonging to the majority community expect his/her sons and daughters, even if they are well-qualified, to receive college education in Kerala? Difficult as it is to get admission in a college, it is unlikely to be lost on many Hindus that they stand a much higher chance, should they convert to one of the privileged minority faiths.
A resident of Kanyakumari – a southern district of Kanyakumari in the state of Tamilnadu that has newly become Christian majority – has commented below on the infringing of the rights of the Hindu community. Here again, the issue of concern is enhanced government-sponsored empowerment opportunities available for those who belong to minority religions through Article 30, and their denials to the majority community:[lii]
There are so many scholarship programmes for minorities and backward classes, but there is no such scholarship for Hindu students. The poor are not able to afford children’s education. We will have to vote for Radhakrishnan [a Hindu legislator contestant] to get our rights back.[liii]
Not surprisingly, in many parts of India, there have been anecdotal instances of entire families converting to Christianity in order for their children to receive education and scholarships.[liv] This is creating destabilising social tensions, with the ill-informed majority community unable to enact measures to modify the existing minority-favouring system of quotas, and instead, directing anger unfairly at the minority Christians.
One such violent conflict has recently occurred in Khandamal district of Orissa, where tensions have been building up for some time between the non-tribal (Paanas) who converted to Christianity and the tribal (Kandhas) who remained in Hinduism.[lv] Those who converted found themselves selectively empowered[lvi] through education in missionary-controlled but government-funded schools and colleges, thanks in part due to Article 30-induced reservations. A Kandha complained in an interview: “We feel neglected here – even our political representatives are all Paanas. Paanas convert to Christianity and are well off.”[lvii]
Evidence-based reasoning suggests that India is undergoing a civilisational change – a process of de-hinduising, powered by Article 30-induced egregious deprivations. This shows that the majority community in India has not yet matured enough to protect its core interests from being unfairly trampled. While the minorities’ politisation of their religious institutions have helped them mobilize their community to vote and to leverage the voting power to advance their interests,[lviii] the lack of politisation of the majority community’s religious institutions has not helped. These contrasting roles played by the religious institutions of the minority and majority communities can be traced to centuries of rule by alien powers. In order to mitigate potential challenges to their hold on power, the alien entities ensured de-politising of the majority community’s religious institutions.
Among the capable segments of India’s population, the middle class, upper middle class, and even the rich members of the majority community have remained apolitical – by largely shying away from voting – due to their disappointment with the political process in the nation.[lix] They could afford to, as the booming economy of the past two decades has created educational and job opportunities for them. However, as the minority population percentage increases invariably in the coming years, as present trends indicate, Article 30-induced discriminations will increasingly shut the door on majority empowerment. Indeed, as seen in Kerala with substantial minority population, this process will only intensify in the coming years. This is not a speculation; it is a reasoned extrapolation of data and backed by an analysis based on the acclaimed work of a Nobel Prize-winning economist.
It has become quite clear that the apolitical, and yet the capable segments of the majority community now have to involve themselves in the political process, in order to ensure a future for themselves and their progenies. This should rejuvenate the Indian politic and help usher in a new era for Indian democracy. Article 30 will likely loom large as an issue in near-term electoral politics for a good reason: Not known for its religiosity, the majority community is driven by its desire for material comforts that require growing education and employment opportunities. Hence, sooner than later politicians are going to figure out that addressing Article 30’s undercutting of these opportunities offers among the best means of politically mobilising the entire community in order to build a strong powerbase.
Clearly, modern and “emergent” India has to do away with Article 30 in the present form. The question remains what should replace it. A window into answering this question comes from the United States of America, arguable among the most developed secular democracies and home to a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. Discriminations faced by the black minorities and to a lesser extent by non-Christian and non-white immigrants from abroad (in employment, educational, social and professional settings), compelled the United States to enact the cornerstone anti-discrimination legislation: The Civil Rights Act of 1964. The legislation, among other things, prohibits discriminations based on race, colour, religion, sex and national origin.[lx] There is an exception: Due to their under-privileged status brought by centuries of deliberate denial of empowerment by the majority whites, minorities such as the blacks in America have now been afforded special privileges in the form of a very limited quota system called Affirmative Action.[lxi]
This article shouldn’t be viewed as an attack on Christian minorities or a call for undermining their rights, or an effort to stop conversions altogether. The focus of this analysis is about the egregious human rights violations of the 80 percent majority community. By tracing these violations to Article 30 of the Indian constitution, this piece offers ways of addressing this issue objectively and fairly without infringing on anyone’s rights. As a modern and free nation, India ought to uphold the right of its people to practice and importantly, change a faith as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”[lxii]
One could justifiably argue that India doesn’t deserve to be called a modern democracy unless it takes steps to stop the constitution-based egregious discriminatory practices and unfair denial of empowerment of one eighth of entire humanity.[lxiii] The country, which spearheaded the opposition to the apartheid regime in South Africa, now finds itself in an unfortunate position of practicing a form of apartheid on its majority population.
If biodiversity is viewed crucial for the well-being of humanity,[xliv] so should cultural-religious diversity. For instance, India’s western neighbour Pakistan’s relentless drive to eradicate cultural-religious diversity within may have left it highly vulnerable to dead-end ideologies.[lxv] It is incumbent on humanity to ensure that ancient ways of life are allowed to evolve, and not be extinguished by apartheid practices.
(Dr. Moorthy Muthuswamy is a U.S.-based nuclear physicist . His contact website:http://www.moorthymuthuswamy.com/ The views expressed by the author are his own.)
Also read:
1. Why did the Ramakrishna Mission say they are not Hindus – a detailed study on the issue of rights of minority educational institutions in India.
2. Religion not caste behind Reservations
3. The Humanities And The Social Sciences In Indian Universities
References
[1] “Literacy in India,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_in_India (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
[2] NDTV, June 09, 2008, http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080052488(accessed Nov. 11, 2010).
[3]Ibid.
[4] Outlook India, June 25, 2007, http://www.outlookindia.com/article.aspx?234958 (accessed Nov. 11, 2010).
[5] “2001 Census India – State-wide Population Breakdown by Religion,”http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/Census_data_finder/C_Series/Population_by_religious_communities.htm(accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[6] Outlook India.
[7] “National Commission for Minorities – Genesis,” http://ncm.nic.in/genesis.html (accessed Nov. 14, 2010).
[8] “National Commission for Minorities – Constitutional Provisions,”http://ncm.nic.in/constitutional_prov.html (accessed Nov. 13, 2010); see also, “Minority Rights – The Judicial Approach,” http://www.legalservicesindia.com/articles/judi.htm (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
[9] “Indian Constitution, Religious Discrimination and USCIRF,” South Asia Analysis Group, May 19, 2005,
http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers14%5Cpaper1386.html (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
[10] “2001 Census India – State-wide Population Breakdown by Religion.”
[11]Ibid.
[12] India Currents, July 17-23, 2008, http://www.hvk.org/articles/0708/138.html (accessed Nov. 12, 2010).
[13] The New York Times, August 28, 2008, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/29/world/asia/29india.html(accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[14] “National Commission for Minorities – Minority Literacy Rates,”http://ncm.nic.in/minority_population.pdf (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[15] “2001 Census India – Literacy Rates,”http://www.censusindia.gov.in/Census_Data_2001/India_at_glance/literates1.aspx (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[16] India Currents.
[17] “National Commission for Minorities – Constitutional Provisions.”
[18] Free Press Release, Dec. 18, 2009, http://www.free-press-release.com/news-christians-oppose-rangnath-mishra-report-1261137900.html (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[19] “St. Stephen’s College – Delhi,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Stephen’s_College,_Delhi(accessed Nov. 17, 2010).
[20] “South Africa under Apartheid,” Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[21] Outlook India.
[22] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[23] Peter Wonacott, “Lawless Legislators Thwart Social Progress in India,” Wall Street Journal, May 4, 2007.
[24] CNN-IBN, Mar. 29, 2008, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/in-booming-india-hunger-kills-6000-kidsdaily/62220-17.html (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[25] “National Commission for Minorities – Minority Literacy Rates.”
[26] Sadanand Dhume, “Is India an Ally?” Commentary Magazine, Jan. 2008.
[27] “Why have Pakistan and India Evolved so differently?” South Asia Analysis Group, Nov. 1, 2010,http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/papers42/paper4138.html (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[28] “Right to Education Act,” http://www.indg.in/primary-education/policiesandschemes/right-to-education-bill (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[29] “Receipt and Utilization of Foreign Contribution by Voluntary Associations,”http://www.mha.gov.in/fcra/annual/ar2006-07.pdf (accessed Nov. 14, 2010).
[30]NDTV.
[31]Outlook India.
[32] Thomas Schelling, “Dynamic Models of Segregation,” Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1 (1971), pp. 143-86; see also, “Thomas Schelling,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Schelling(accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[33] “Christian Conversions in North-East India,” Mar. 10, 2006,http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?type=ARTICLES&id=1141970933 (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[34] “2001 Census India – State-wide Population Breakdown by Religion.”
[35] “Operation World – India,” http://www.operationworld.org/indi (accessed Nov. 17, 2010).
[36] “2001 Census India – State-wide Population Breakdown by Religion.”
[37] “Operation World – India”; see also, “Joshua Project – India,”http://www.joshuaproject.net/countries.php (accessed Nov. 17, 2010).
[38] “Religion in India,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_India (accessed Nov. 18, 2010).
[39] “Population of India over a Century,”
http://cyberjournalist.org.in/census/cenpop.html (accessed Nov. 18, 2010).
[40] “Operation World – India.”
[41] Outlook India.
[42] “Reservations in India,” Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reservation_in_India (accessed Nov. 23, 2010).
[43] Ibid; from this reference: the forward caste in India constitutes well over 30 percent, compared to about 20 percent, Muslim and Christian communities put together.
[44] Organiser, Oct. 31, 2004,
http:/www.organiser.org/dynamic/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=48&page=30(accessed Nov. 14, 2010).
[45] The Pioneer, May 4, 2009, http://www.dailypioneer.com/173741/BJP-has-bright-chances-in-2-TN-seats.html (accessed Nov. 14, 2010).
[46]Ibid.
[47] The Times of India, Sept. 17, 2006,
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Inducements_lure_poor_to_convert/articleshow/3491637.cms(accessed Nov. 14, 2010).
[48] “Religious Violence in Orissa,” Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_violence_in_Orissa (accessed Nov. 14, 2010).
[49] IBNLive, Dec. 30, 2007, http://ibnlive.in.com/news/caste-tribe-conversion-make-orissa-district-volatile/55272-3.html (accessed Nov. 22, 2010).
[50]Ibid.
[51] Boloji, Mar. 12, 2006, http://www.boloji.com/plainspeak/021.htm (accessed Nov. 16, 2010); see also, “The Pioneer.”
[52] IBNLive, Mar. 25, 2005, http://ibnlive.in.com/blogs/saurabhsaksena/559/53292/why-the-middleclass-must-vote.html (accessed Nov. 13, 2010); see also, Asia Times, Apr. 25, 2009,http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KD25Df01.html (accessed Nov. 13, 2010).
[53] “The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,”http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/civil-rights-act/ (accessed Nov. 13, 2010); see also, “Civil Rights Act of 1964,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 (accessed Nov. 14, 2010).
[54] “Affirmative Action in the United States,” Wikipedia,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States (accessed Nov. 14, 2010).
[55] “The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
[56] Derived from estimated Hindu majority population of 850 million taken from “Operation World – India” and “World Population,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population (accessed, Nov. 22, 2010).
[57] “Biodiversity,” Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity (accessed Nov. 15, 2010).
[58] “Why have Pakistan and India Evolved so differently?” http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Religious-Apartheid-in-Modern-India~-Transforming-of-a-Civilisation-4.aspx
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 6:38 PM, <rajivmalhotra2007ATgmail.com>wrote: This should be a civil debate on 1) what should be hindu policy in international waters, and 2) who should represent us externally and with what mandate and process. It should not be accusations about someone’s personal life based on wild assumptions. I regard Ramdas as an old friend but do not approve of such an allegation being made against Kalyanaraman. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
From: “S. Kalyanaraman” <kalyan97ATgmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2010 10:24:27 +0530
To: Ramdas Lamb<rlambAThawaii.rr.com>
Cc: BAL RAM SINGH<bsinghATumassdDOT>; Rajiv Malhotra<rajivmalhotra2007ATgmail.com>; Nagendra S. Rao<nagendrasraoATgmail.com>; rakesh bhargava<rakbahATgmail.com>; Aditi bannerjee<banerjeeaATgmail.com>; Gautam Sen<gautam.senATgmail.com>; <raviATmedhajournal.com>; Dwaipayan Lahiri<dwaiATmedhajournal.com>; Mihir Meghani<MihirAThafsite.org>; Swaminathan Venkataraman<swaminathan.venkataramanATgmail.com>; R. Venkatanarayanan<daps2322ATgmail.com>; Saradindu Mukherji<s_mukherji1ATrediffmail.com>; Ashok Chowgule<ashokvcATchowgulegoa.com>; Ram Sidhaye<indicyogaATgmail.com>; Narain Kataria<KatariaNATaol.com>; Abhaya Asthana<abhayajiATgmail.com>; Kalavai Venkat<kalavai.venkatATgmail.com>; karigar – ravi joshi<karigar01ATgmail.com>; Vasu Murthy<thoughtsrlifeATgmail.com>; Aseem Shukla<aseem.shuklaAThinduamericanfoundation.org>; Suhag Shukla<suhag.shuklaAThinduamericanfoundation.org>; Ved Nanda<nandasATearthlink.net>; Kejrival Sashi<sashiATmetint.com>; Dhiru shah atlanta<SIARAMATaol.com>; Subhash Kak<kakATece.lsuDOT>; subash razdan<subashrazdanATyahoo.com>; swami jyotirmayananda<swamijyotiATgmail.com>; Tadatmananda Swami<SwamiTATarshabodha.org>; tarun vijay<tarun.vijayATgmail.com>; S Gurumurthy<guruATgurumurthy.net>; Kanchan Banerjee<kbkaliATyahoo.com>
Subject: Re: The way forward on the recent HAF controversy
My answers to your questions:
YES.
dhanyosmi. kalyan
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Ramdas Lamb<rlambAThawaii.rr.com> wrote:
Sri Kalyanaraman,
Please remove me from your list. I apologize to those who may be offended by this but I am no longer interested in reading emails from people congratulating each other for supposedly superior thinking that does noting of substance to improve the lives of oppressed rural Harijans. The issue is far too important to me than that. I really wonder, have you actually ever DONE something to improve their lives? Have you actually ever experienced caste oppression first hand and experience first hand what it does to them? I know it is comforting to pretend it is no longer a problem or that it requires more thinking and planning in order to solve. Caste prejudice has been destroying aspirations and lives since ancient times. When is simply thinking about the issue no longer enough? At least HAF sought to do something to start the ball rolling. If you don’t like the approach, then come up with something substantial that you will do and tell us when you will do it. Again, what have you done so far? Whenever you or your friends decide to actually begin the process of helping the countless devoted Harijan Hindus who simply want equality of opportunity, please let me and others know, and I will join in your efforts. Until then, I am tired of reading empty rhetoric.
Most sincerely,
Ramdas Lamb
Guardian – Ramesh Rao – HAF caste report
———- Forwarded message ———
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97ATgmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 1:32 PM
Subject: Re: Guardian – Ramesh Rao – HAF caste report
To: Gautam Sen <gautam.senATgmail.com>
Cc: sri venkat <ahvenkiteshATgmail.com>, Aseem Shukla <aseemAThafsite.org>, Kalavai Venkat <kalavai.venkatATgmail.com>, “Nagendra S. Rao” <nagendrasraoATgmail.com>, Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaATgmail.com>, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007ATgmail.com>, raviATmedhajournal.com, Dwaipayan Lahiri <dwaiATmedhajournal.com>, Mihir Meghani <MihirAThafsite.org>, Swaminathan Venkataraman <swaminathan.venkataramanATgmail.com>, “R. Venkatanarayanan” <daps2322ATgmail.com>, Saradindu Mukherji <s_mukherji1ATrediffmail.com>, Ashok Chowgule <ashokvcATchowgulegoa.com>, Ravi Joshi <karigar01ATgmail.com>, “Dr. Rakesh Bahadur” <rakbahATgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaATgmail.com>, Vasu Murthy <thoughtsrlifeATgmail.com>
Dear Mihir ji,
Please do not take, lightly, the concerns expressed by Gautam Sen ji. The concerns raised by him are extremely serious and HAF should not trip into this political game and take along a part of the Hindu samajam with the tripping.
HAF should cool down, introspect deeply, take a deep breath as in pranaayaamam yoga.
Listen to the impassioned, sage voice of Swamiji and discuss on how to operationalise Swamiji’s guidance. Don’t swerve from this imperative.
Do not become defensive in trying to hang on to a potentially dangerous stand HAF has taken in a half-baked report. Mere cosmetic edits will not resolve the problem but only compound it.
What more can I say, Mihir ji. I hope HAF is listening, you are listening and that I am not talking to a wall.
dhanyavaadaah.
kalyanaraman
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Gautam Sen <gautam.senATgmail.com> wrote:
This is extremely unhelpful because British Christian groups (with the backing of the Church hierarchy) are not interested in debate and discussion. They want UK legislate against alleged caste discrimination in order to further a broader agenda of conversion. The next stage will be formal incorporation of anti-caste provisions within EU law and UN resolutions. Period. They will cite this article as more confirmatory evidence that Hindus are a bunch of racists and imply that civilised legislation by Christians is imperative to address the problem of caste discrimination.
Evangelists also happen to be active converting British Hindus and Hindu traitors are accepting bribes and the other rewards to help their diabolical cause. So-called Hindu groups are completely infiltrated by Church representatives and the intelligence services. One of things they are urging on India, completely unconnected to Hinduism, is a resumption dialogue with Pakistan, regardless of any terrorist atrocities and to ‘settle’ the Kashmir issue on terms that satisfy Pakistani aspirations. This will allegedly bring peace (evangelists are hot on this topic and our NRI shopkeepers and pharmacists instantly wiping tears on hearing it mentioned ) to the Indian subcontinent. All these things are in play and reforming Hinduism is only a prelude to opening a wider political front against both India and Hindus. The continued presence of Sonia Gandhi has made all of this feasible, but, in their view, may not last. I cannot divulge my sources for the latter conviction, but they are extraordinarily well placed abroad to extract information about the conspiracies afoot.
Stalin signed a pact with Hitler in 1939 to better prepare for war (because Britain refused to agree any measures against Hitler). Feverish preparations then took place, but once the war began no further engagement with Hitler took place and Soviet citizens who made any contact with the Nazis were always executed. The people of Russia barely survived the Nazi assault and paid an unprecedented price to resist and then defeat Hitler. I do believe that Christians (and Muslims) are currently engaged in final desperate bid, while Sonia Gandhi remains preeminent, to create insurmountable facts on the grounds that will make it impossible to dislodge a Christian political presence in India. They already claim 8% of the population as converts, more in the south, I suspect. And they aim, not for an outright of majority, but numbers in the region of 15%+ in the interim. Once they reach such numbers Christians will have Hindus cornered because they are in alliance with Islam, which usually provides a reliable block vote. Some other OBC groups are also already in their pocket and will willingly collaborate with them.
The chorus against the Hindu upper caste is just a ruse and one which has been used for a very long time for political purposes. It is this cause that absurd self-flagellation over caste is aiding.
GS
On 22 December 2010 00:33, sri venkat <ahvenkiteshATgmail.com> wrote:
Recasting Hinduism for the 21st century
Ramesh Rao
“It is important that Hindus take the lead in acknowledging the damage
that caste discrimination does and resolving to tackle it”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/dec/21/india-hindu-dalit
EV Ramaswamy Naicker and castes of India
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Arvind Kumar <arvind.kumarDOTgmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Subject: EV Ramaswamy Naicker and castes of India
To: “S. Kalyanaraman” <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>, Swaminathan Venkataraman <swaminathan.venkataramanDOTgmail.com>, “Mihir Meghani (HAF)” <mihirDOThafsite.org>, Aseem Shukla <aseemDOThafsite.org>, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, Vishal Agarwal <vishalsagarwalDOTyahoo.com>, Kalavai Venkat <history_judgeDOTyahoo.com>, Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>, Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>, indicyogaDOTgmail.com, rakbahDOTgmail.com, nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com, subhashkDOTcs.okstateDOT, sashiDOTmetint.com, ramdas214DOTgmail.com
I am not an expert on any topic, but I wanted to send you these links. The links here are to scanned pages from books and newspapers (except in one case where it is a recent news item). The attachment to this email is a news item from 1957 that was published in the NYT.
There links here are provided in order to make two points.
(1) Priests in Hinduism were not exclusively Brahmins. You will see that Mudaliars, Vanniars, Thattans and Goundans were priests too.
(2) EV Ramaswamy Naicker and members of his Dravidian movement instilled terror and belonged to a hate-group. They called for a large-scale genocide.
Please go through the information at each link carefully. I have excerpted the relevant parts.
Census of India, 1961, Volume 9
Poojas are performed twice daily by a non-hereditary Gurukkal and a hereditary Mudaliar priest in the Siva and Sri Angalaparameswari temples respectively.
Census of India, 1961: Pondicherry State
The festival to the goddess Mariamman takes place in the month of ‘Purattasi’ (September). There is one Vanniar priest called ‘Poosari’ who officiates in …
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Sm0xAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4AAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4673,2043158
Toledo Blade, June 2, 1958
Early this year, he [Ramaswamy Naicker] was imprisoned for calling on his followers to kill Brahmins and burn their homes, arguing that there were only about 2,000,000 Brahmins in Tamilnad and no one would miss them.
[Baltimore] Sun, March 30, 1967
One of the original tenets of the party, best known by its initials in Tamil, DMK was hatred of the North Indians and Brahmins in particular.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=578-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=XkwMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6420,4257393
Indian Express, March 24, 1936
Brahmins must be annihilated
… Mr. E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker, founder of the self-respecting movement, was also present on the occasion. The proceedings of the Conference began with the singing of self-respect and socialist songs by a number of persons.
… When their great leader — Comrade E.V. Ramaswamy– was …
… The President then sketched out the future programme. He said: Brahmins must be annihilated and that could be done only by them.
Christian Science Monitor, Dec 27, 1957
Nehru acts to halt anti-Brahmin terror
SEE ATTACHMENT for news item from NYT
New York Times, Oct 26, 1957
A Leader in South India exhorts his followers to kill Brahmins
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=nsw-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=W0wMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2378%2C527445
Indian Express, Oct 6, 1953
Rajaji then mentioned the trouble given by ants and bugs he referred to earlier. The ants were those who revelled in drinking deep at the well of hatred and malice and spreading communal hatred, the Dravida Kazhagam and the like.
Indian village folk: their works and ways by Thomas B. Pandian (1898)
[since this book is by a convert, you can safely take the positives and discard the negatives - that is the only correct method to read this book.]
Page 38 – The Goldsmith (Thattan)
The men of this class do not intermarry; they have their own priests, and do not allow any of the Brahmin priests to officiate for them;
…
They have the general title of Achari, and some of them are called Pattan, which is the equivalent of the Brahmin Bhatta.
Page 71 – The Oil Pressers (Vaniars)
The oil pressers form a distinct class, and they have a priest of their own caste.
Page 124 – There are two classes of priests – the one Brahmin, the other non-Brahmin.
Page 127 – He is really the most intelligent man in the village, and he has introduced several useful institutions in the name of religion, for which the villagers ought to be thankful. Wherever the institutions and regulations of the priest are observed, the savageness and vulgarity are certainly moderated.
A Manual of the Salem district in the Presidency of Madras, Henry Le Fanu (1883)
A young priest, Lachmana Goundan, states that he placed him in the headship . . .
http://www.thehindu.com/2009/05/08/stories/2009050854060500.htm
The Hindu, May 8, 2009
[Read this news item to see how one becomes a backward caste: by making a "representation" to the government - that probably means they torched a few buses and shattered anything made of glass that was in sight - even when you are very strong academically and financially, you can become a backward caste.]
From a Forward Caste, the Kongu Vellala Gounders and 14 sub-castes became Backward Caste in 1975 following a representation to the Government.
…
The question now is whether the party will be able to end the Gounders’ stand-off with the Dalits – the Arundhathiars – in Coimbatore.
…
What makes the party stand out is its money power. Its members, including many of its office-bearers, have flourishing agriculture, textile and engineering businesses. “We are socially, economically and academically strong, but not politically,” explains Mr. Ramaswamy.
Please try to lay your hands on the book listed here and which is entitled “India’s Untouchable Saints” (1895?).
-a
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>
Date: Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 7:07 AM
Subject: MEMBER ALERT – HAF clarifies purpose of Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste
To:
Mihir ji,
Saadar pranaam.
This is an incomplete alert. HAF may consider amending it. What is in it for action by members?
Please read the guidance of Swamiji again:
“Pujya Swamiji has also suggested that, given the complex and contentious nature of the subject of the report and its ramifications, however unintended, HAF may seriously consider inviting observations and comments of a wider circle of knowledgeable persons and those with practical grass roots experience over the last several decades in India in the subject matter. This may help HAF to reach a wise decision regarding the manner in which the report as it stands now may be revised in the larger interests of Hindu society.”
Think of what HAF should do to invite observations and comments of a wider circle of knowledgeable persons and with decades of grass roots experience. HAF stand on these steps should be made explicit and clarified to the readers of your notes whether called internet report or draft for consultation.
There should no silence on HAF’s part in re thess specific, unambiguous guidelines of Swamiji repeated above.
Methinks, it will be ok for HAF to say that their report is NOT addressed to US Congress NOR intended for circulation beyond the Hindu samajam and members of HAF. I assume it is meant only for further deliberations on an issue which has been debated ad nauseum in hundreds of documents and in many political fora. Sotto voce, I can say this: the debate will end only when mahaakaala ends or when kaNaada’s definition of dharma gets enshrined in the samajam:
कणाद of Vais’eshika:
Athaato dharma vyaakhyaasyaamah Yatobhyudaya nihs’reyasa siddhih sa dharmah (Vais’eshika Sutra, वैशेषिक सूत्र 1.11-.2):
अथातो धर्मं व्याख्यास्यामः यतोभ्युदय निह्श्रेयस सिद्धिः स धर्मं
(Trans. Now, I shall explain dharma: That from which abhyudayam (Social welfare) and nihshreyas (union of aatman with paramaatman) is attained that is dharma.)
kalyanaraman
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Hindu American Foundation <infoDOThafsite.org>
Date: Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Subject: MEMBER ALERT – HAF clarifies purpose of Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste
|
The Caste System
by Prof. Koenraad Elst
In an inter-faith debate, most Hindus can easily be put on the defensive with a single word-caste. Any anti-Hindu polemist can be counted on to allege that “the typically Hindu caste system is the most cruel apartheid, imposed by the barbaric white Aryan invaders on the gentle dark-skinned natives.” Here’s a more balanced and historical account of this controversial institution.
Merits of the Caste System
The caste system is often portrayed as the ultimate horror. Inborn inequality is indeed unacceptable to us moderns, but this does not preclude that the system has also had its merits.
Caste is perceived as an “exclusion-from,” but first of all it is a form of “belonging-to,” a natural structure of solidarity. For this reason, Christian and Muslim missionaries found it very difficult to lure Hindus away from their communities. Sometimes castes were collectively converted to Islam, and Pope Gregory XV (1621-23) decreed that the missionaries could tolerate caste distinction among Christian converts; but by and large, caste remained an effective hurdle to the destruction of Hinduism through conversion. That is why the missionaries started attacking the institution of caste and in particular the brahmin caste. This propaganda has bloomed into a full-fledged anti-brahminism, the Indian equivalent of anti-Semitism.
Every caste had a large measure of autonomy, with its own judiciary, duties and privileges, and often its own temples. Inter-caste affairs were settled at the village council by consensus; even the lowest caste had veto power. This autonomy of intermediate levels of society is the antithesis of the totalitarian society in which the individual stands helpless before the all-powerful state. This decentralized structure of civil society and of the Hindu religious commonwealth has been crucial to the survival of Hinduism under Muslim rule. Whereas Buddhism was swept away as soon as its monasteries were destroyed, Hinduism retreated into its caste structure and weathered the storm.
Caste also provided a framework for integrating immigrant communities: Jews, Zoroastrians and Syrian Christians. They were not only tolerated, but assisted in efforts to preserve their distinctive traditions.
Typically Hindu?
It is routinely claimed that caste is a uniquely Hindu institution. Yet, counter examples are not hard to come by. In Europe and elsewhere, there was (or still is) a hierarchical distinction between noblemen and commoners, with nobility only marrying nobility. Many tribal societies punished the breach of endogamy rules with death.
Coming to the Indian tribes, we find Christian missionaries claiming that “tribals are not Hindus because they do not observe caste.” In reality, missionary literature itself is rife with testimonies of caste practices among tribals. A spectacular example is what the missions call “the Mistake:” the attempt, in 1891, to make tribal converts in Chhotanagpur inter-dine with converts from other tribes. It was a disaster for the mission. Most tribals renounced Christianity because they chose to preserve the taboo on inter-dining. As strongly as the haughtiest brahmin, they refused to mix what God hath separated.
Endogamy and exogamy are observed by tribal societies the world over. The question is therefore not why Hindu society invented this system, but how it could preserve these tribal identities even after outgrowing the tribal stage of civilization. The answer lies largely in the expanding Vedic culture’s intrinsically respectful and conservative spirit, which ensured that each tribe could preserve its customs and traditions, including its defining custom of tribal endogamy.
Description and History
The Portuguese colonizers applied the term caste, “lineage, breed,” to two different Hindu institutions: jati and varna. The effective unit of the caste system is the jati, birth-unit, an endogamous group into which you are born, and within which you marry. In principle, you can only dine with fellow members, but the pressures of modern life have eroded this rule. The several thousands of jatis are subdivided in exogamous clans, gotra. This double division dates back to tribal society.
By contrast, varna is the typical functional division of an advanced society-the Indus/Saraswati civilization, 3rd millennium, bce. The youngest part of the Rg-Veda describes four classes: learned brahmins born from Brahma’s mouth, martial kshatriya-born from his arms; vaishya entrepreneurs born from His hips and shudra workers born from His feet. Everyone is a shudra by birth. Boys become dwija, twice-born, or member of one of the three upper varnas upon receiving the sacred thread in the upanayana ceremony.
The varna system expanded from the Saraswati-Yamuna area and got firmly established in the whole of Aryavarta (Kashmir to Vidarbha, Sindh toBihar). It counted as a sign of superior culture setting the arya, civilized, heartland apart from the surrounding mleccha, barbaric, lands. In Bengaland the South, the system was reduced to a distinction between brahmins and shudras. Varna is a ritual category and does not fully correspond to effective social or economic status. Thus, half of the princely rulers in British India were shudras and a few were brahmins, though it is the kshatriya function par excellence. Many shudras are rich, many brahmins impoverished.
The Mahabharata defines the varna qualities thus: “He in whom you find truthfulness, generosity, absence of hatred, modesty, goodness and self-restraint, is a brahmana. He who fulfills the duties of a knight, studies the scriptures, concentrates on acquisition and distribution of riches, is a kshatriya. He who loves cattle-breeding, agriculture and money, is honest and well-versed in scripture, is a vaishya. He who eats anything, practises any profession, ignores purity rules, and takes no interest in scriptures and rules of life, is a shudra.” The higher the varna, the more rules of self-discipline are to be observed. Hence, a jati could collectively improve its status by adopting more demanding rules of conduct, e.g. vegetarianism.
A person’s second name usually indicates his jati or gotra. Further, one can use the following varna titles: Sharma (shelter, or joy) indicates the brahmin, Varma (armour) the kshatriya, Gupta (protected) the vaishya and Das (servant) the shudra. In a single family, one person may call himself Gupta (varna), another Agrawal (jati), yet another Garg (gotra). A monk, upon renouncing the world, sheds his name along with his caste identity.
Untouchability
Below the caste hierarchy are the untouchables, or harijan (literally “God’s people”), dalits (“oppressed”), paraiah (one such caste in South India), or scheduled castes. They make up about 16% of the Indian population, as many as the upper castes combined.
Untouchability originates in the belief that evil spirits surround dead and dying substances. People who work with corpses, body excretions or animal skins had an aura of danger and impurity, so they were kept away from mainstream society and from sacred learning and ritual. This often took grotesque forms: thus, an untouchable had to announce his polluting proximity with a rattle, like a leper.
Untouchability is unknown in the Vedas, and therefore repudiated by neo-Vedic reformers like Dayanand Saraswati, Narayan Guru, Gandhiji and Savarkar. In 1967, Dr. Ambedkar, a dalit by birth and fierce critic of social injustice in Hinduism and Islam, led a mass conversion to Buddhism, partly on the (unhistorical) assumption that Buddhism had been an anti-caste movement. The 1950 constitution outlawed untouchability and sanctioned positive discrimination programs for the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Lately, the Vishva Hindu Parishad has managed to get even the most traditionalist religious leaders on the anti-untouchability platform, so that they invite harijans to Vedic schools and train them as priests. In the villages, however, pestering of dalits is still a regular phenomenon, occasioned less by ritual purity issues than by land and labor disputes. However, the dalits’ increasing political clout is accelerating the elimination of untouchability.
Caste Conversion
In the Mahabharata, Yuddhishthira affirms that varna is defined by the qualities of head and heart, not by one’s birth. Krishna teaches that varna is defined by one’s activity (karma) and quality (guna). Till today, it is an unfinished debate to what extent one’s “quality” is determined by heredity or by environmental influence. And so, while the hereditary view has been predominant for long, the non-hereditary conception of varna has always been around as well, as is clear from the practice of varna conversion. The most famous example is the 17th-century freedom fighter Shivaji, a shudra who was accorded kshatriya status to match his military achievements. The geographical spread of Vedic tradition was achieved through large-scale initiation of local elites into the varna order. From 1875 onwards, the Arya Samaj has systematically administered the “purification ritual” (shuddhi) to Muslim and Christian converts and to low-caste Hindus, making the dwija. Conversely, the present policy of positive discrimination has made upper-caste people seek acceptance into the favored Scheduled Castes.
Veer Savarkar, the ideologue of Hindu nationalism, advocated intermarriage to unify the Hindu nation even at the biological level. Most contemporary Hindus, though now generally opposed to caste inequality, continue to marry within their respective jati because they see no reason for their dissolution.
Racial Theory of Caste
Nineteenth-century Westerners projected the colonial situation and the newest race theories on the caste system: the upper castes were white invaders lording it over the black natives. This outdated view is still repeated ad-nauseam by anti-Hindu authors: now that “idolatry” has lost its force as a term of abuse, “racism” is a welcome innovation to demonize Hinduism. In reality, India is the region where all skin color types met and mingled, and you will find many brahmins as black as Nelson Mandela. Ancient “Aryan” heroes like Rama, Krishna, Draupadi, Ravana (a brahmin) and a number of Vedic seers were explicitly described as being dark-skinned.
But doesn’t varna mean “skin color?” The effective meaning of varna is “splendor, color,” and hence “distinctive quality” or “one segment in a spectrum.” The four functional classes constitute the “colors” in the spectrum of society. Symbolic colors are allotted to the varna on the basis of the cosmological scheme of “three qualities” (triguna): white is sattva (truthful), the quality typifying the brahmin; red is rajas (energetic), for the kshatriya; black is tamas (inert, solid), for the shudra; yellow is allotted to the vaishya, who is defined by a mixture of qualities.
Finally, caste society has been the most stable society in history. Indian communists used to sneer that “India has never even had a revolution.”Actually, that is no mean achievement.
http://www.freespeechproject.com/castesys.html
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/2009/04/democracy-and-nationalization-of-higher.html
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/2010/11/secularism-communalism-and-casteism-in.html
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/2010/12/indian-secularism-sham-part-iv-casteism.html
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/2009/04/indian-secularism-sham.html
http://sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/2009/04/secularism-and-communalism-most-abused.html
HAF succumbs by Christian bullying
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Kalavai Venkat <kalavai.venkatDOTgmail.com>
To: Hindu Civilization <hinducivilizationDOTyahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 10:33:47 PM
Subject: [hc] HAF succumbs by Christian bullying
HAF was one of the groups that advocated the Hindu cause in the west.
Recently, they came up with a report on caste that can best be called
pathetic. This report is a sad reminder of how Christian bullying gets to
even well-meaning Hindus and how they pathetically crave for recognition
from the very Christian bigots that want to erase their identity. Here is a
letter I sent to some of the concerned individuals.
**************************************
Very good analysis from Aditi. Prof. Paul Younger wrote that Hinduism is
presented in the academia with a Protestant bias, and it is depicted in a
way Protestant scholars want Hinduism to be. Unfortunately, many Hindus also
absorb the same biases. In this case, HAF seems to have succumbed to it. It
is probably the compulsion of having to work in a Christian society where
they also interact with politicians. Hindus must understand that trying to
please Christians and indulging in endeavors such as this to make Hinduism
palatable to the Christian west are futile exercises.
Prof. Dirks, Prof. Srinivas and others have shown that caste has been a very
dynamic and fluid institution. HAF could attempt to bring those facts to
light instead of apologizing for caste based on a faulty understanding that
has been imposed upon them by the Christian west. Who is really wanting to
become temple priests? The job does not pay. Priestly families are literally
starving. Now you want to take away their subsistence living too just
because you want your white buddies to commend your liberal stance? You have
chosen the weakest and the least defended section of society (Brahmin
priests) as your soft target to earn your laurels. Shame on you.
This report is a sign of the pathetic levels our own Hindu intelligentsia
can stoop to so as to win some admiration from cultural or religious
Christian whites. Is HAF even aware that most temples in India are not
administered by Brahmin priests but served by a different jati group
traditionally? Do you want to try advocating taking away the Mariamman
temples of the South Arcot district from the Vanniyar community? You will
learn it is a different battle from taking on soft targets. But don’t worry.
Your white friends would have never heard of Vanniyars. May be HAF can serve
a worthy cause by demanding that priests in Christan churches and schools
(funded by tax money) in India be representative of all castes and that
their appointment be guided by principles of social justice. The US State
Department will turn the heat under their seats should they attempt such
things!
What is all this nonsense about rejecting a smriti that was written two
millennia ago? Each smriti or dharmashastra is a product of its time. It is
of no more than of literary or historical interest today. It seems our own
westernized Hindus have been so intimidated by the Christian bullies that
they want to reject texts from a bygone era.
Those Hindus that want to apologize for caste merely need to read the Bible
to see what a pathetic, discriminatory, and bigoted text it is. Mark Twain
wrote about the Bible: “It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it;
and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good
morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” Yet you
don’t find Christians apologizing for it. It is a tragedy our westernized
Hindus should feel so intimidated by the bullying tactics the Christians
employ.
I would seriously suggest that HAF and other Hindu organizations that are
frightened by Christian bullying to learn a few lessons from Muslim groups.
Have you ever seen them apologize for what is in the Quran or the Hadiths?
Do you see how effectively they have marshaled the left to their side? Are
you guys aware that in the public schools in the USA it is mandatory to
observe Ramadan and offer zakat in the seventh grade? Muslims won their
battle against Christians instead of getting frightened.
You may win or lose a battle. As long as you have fought without getting
intimidated you can hold your head high honorably. There is nothing more
disgusting than a Hindu group groveling at the feet of Christian bullies
with such reports as the one HAF has produced.
Regards,
KV
Guidance of Swami Dayananda Saraswati: Rewrite the HAF Report
——– Forwarded message ———-
From: R. Venkatanarayanan <daps2322DOTgmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 2:13 PM
Subject: HAF Report on “Caste”
To: “Mihir Meghani (HAF)” <mihirDOThafsite.org>, Swaminathan Venkataraman <swamiDOThafsite.org>, Aseem Shukla <aseemDOThafsite.org>
Cc: Rajiv Malhotra <Rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>, Vishal Agarwal <vishalsagarwalDOTgmail.com>, Kalyan Viswanathan <kalyan.viswanathanDOTgmail.com>, “S. Kalyanaraman” <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>, “Nagendra S. Rao” <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>, Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>, daps2322DOTgmail.com, Raghu Rao <raoraghusDOTgmail.com>
Dear Mihir,
Subject: HAF
report on “Caste”
Pujya Swamiji, Dayananda Saraswati has considered Paragraph 2 and 6 of the section, “Acknowledgments” of the captioned report of HAF. This
was in the context of requests from well wishers for clarification whether the Statement issued some time back to HAF by him as Convener
of the Acharya Sabha on the subject of unfair and iniquitous caste-centric discrimination was a “contribution” to be a part of the HAF report. They have also enquired if the inclusion of the statement in the HAF report should be construed to convey his approval or endorsement of the content of the HAF report. He has directed me to say that it will be appropriate and necessary for HAF to re-write the two paragraphs as suggested in the attachment to this mail, to remove any confusion or misgiving in the mind of the reader of the report. The attached revision has been seen by Pujya Swamiji and it issues with his concurrence. I shall appreciate your taking immediately suitable steps.
Pujya Swamiji has also suggested that, given the complex and contentious nature of the subject of the report and its ramifications,
however unintended, HAF may seriously consider inviting observations and comments of a wider circle of knowledgeable persons and those with
practical grass roots experience over the last several decades in India in the subject matter. This may help HAF to reach a wise
decision regarding the manner in which the report as it stands now may be revised in the larger interests of Hindu society.
With good wishes,
R.Venkatanarayanan
Reasons why HAF should withdraw their report on caste
Dec. 15, 2010
I suggest that HAF may consider withdrawing their report on caste.
I will send a supplementary note on the arguments advanced in the CAPEEM case on California Text Books (for 8th grade students) which refer to caste defaming Hindu society and traditions. The same arguments will apply with equal force in asking HAF to withdraw their report on caste.
The reasons are as follows:
To say that reports of socio-economic-political discrimination sporadically reported in India is a human rights problem is an error. It is not the business of any foreign agency, including HAF to interfere in the internal affairs of the state of HIndusthan.
Caste is a remarkable social organization and constitutes the social capital of the nation. Everyone knows that caste is a term derived from Portuguese ‘casta’ which refers to ‘race, breed, lineage’ and is a baseless categorization used during the colonial regime, to designate some social institutions in Hindu society. If at all a term has to be used to designate the traditional artisan or industrial guilds, the term should be jaati used in the Indian traditions.
There is a superb concept called ADHIKAARA in Indian tradition. This adhikaara comes from discharging one’s responsibility in a chosen issue related to the samajam. HAF no track-record of getting immersed in Hindu samajam to understand how great an institution jaati is as an extended family and providing a community-regulated social security system for the members of the extended family. This is social engineering par excellence for creating social capital.
Methinks HAF lacks the adhikaara to write this report on caste. Hindu samajam will take care of its problems without HAF help.
Before talking about human rights HAF will do well to underscore human responsibility exemplified by jaati and strengthening this social institution, this social capital.
HAF report is a mistake and will have undesirable consequences since HAF has walked into the trap of the evangelists calling caste (jaati) a human rights issue. This is what they have been demanding and HAF is seen to be playing jalra to this demand. Most unfortunate because HAF has lost credibility to act as advocacy group for the hindu cause.
In a criminal charge made by some organizations which have been clearly identified as emanating from the Dominus Jesus initiative of Ratzinger, the best defence is to deny mischievous, motivated allegations made by diabolical vested interests such as those operating as evangelist groups. Any internal criticisms among Hindus will be taken advantage, for example, by the rascals operating from colorado as Dalit Freedom Network.
For me, jaati is social capital and proud of the samajam which venerates jaati as a social insurance for the members of an extended family.
Instead HAF is damaging the Hindu cause by such half-baked advocacy. So, questions are being asked. What is in it for HAF directors?
I acknowledge the inputs provided by Shri Arvind Kumar. He has dug out the Ambedkar quotes and Bible verses.
These are the inputs provided by Arvind Kumar to me as well as HAF which HAF will do well to take into account while withdrawing the flawed report on caste:
On caste, my take is that the source of the idea of untouchables is the Bible. I will explain why I say this at the end but please read through the points I list.
1) The most important texts in Hinduism were written by those who would be considered untouchables by the West (Veda Vyasa, Valimiki, Thiruvalluvar). Other holy people too have come from so-called low castes. e.g.: Kannappa Nayanar.
2) Ambedkar in his book on Untouchables clearly exonerates Hinduism. He clearly analyzes verses in Hinduism and points out that Hindu texts do not contain any advocacy of untouchability. What they have is merely ritual purity.
3) There was clearly no oppression at least till the sixth century. So Hinduism or Hindu society cannot be blamed.
4) Percival Spear points out that what we see in the current form crystallized in the 12th century (thanks to the Islamic invaders).
5) Of the texts cited by the West, Hinduism pre-dates them by centuries.
6) Varna system is NOT oppressive. Proof: Indonesia has the varna system and not the jaati system. The society is egalitarian there.
7) Important sages today are from the so-called lower castes. e.g.: Mata Amritanandamayi. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4172328.stm – this proves that the West considers her to be of low caste but Indians revere her.
8) Gods too have come from the cowherd caste – e.g.: Krishna
9) Muslims (in their mosques) teach that other humans are unclean.
10) There are untouchables in Yemen today.
Excerpt from the article at http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=25634
“Clean your plate if it is touched by a dog, but break it if it’s touched by a Khadem [meaning servant in Arabic].” This traditional saying expresses the contempt by mainstream society in Yemen against members of the Akhdam community.
…
After their defeat and expulsion in the sixth century, the remnants of the Ethiopian army that stayed on were reduced to slaves by the native population.
11) There were untouchables in Japan. This system arose soon after Christianity became significant in Japan and faded away when Christianity was defeated by the Samurai.
12) There are untouchables in Islam. Sunday school exam from the website of a mosque in New Jersey:
http://www.imamalimasjid.com/students/exam2006withanswers.htm
But every part of a dog, pig or kafir is najis.
13) Caste is a portuguese word and the Portuguese codified a lot of rules and imposed them on various castes in India. They simply mapped what they had in Europe to India. The British too did this to some extent.
14) To claim that the system of castes is an oppressive system is wrong. If that were the case, why would Reddys or Chettiars be very proud of their caste?
15) Samaritans in the Bible were untouchables.
16) Below are the biblical verses that contain rules on hereditary pollution, indirect pollution and segregation. Stunningly, these rules are similar to what we see today (including in churches). Thus these are the ONLY religious texts that endorse the system. They are also the OLDEST source of the oppressive practice.
Numbers 19
19:16
And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
19:17
And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
19:18
And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
19:19
And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
19:20
But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.
19:21
And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.
19:22
And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean ; and the soul that toucheth it shall beunclean until even.
Here are some from the New Testament showing that ‘pollution’ is hereditary.
1 Corinthians
7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
2 Corinthians
6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
From these texts drawn from the Dharma Sutras as well as Manu, the following points are clear :-
(1) That the pollution by the touch of the Chandala was observed by the Brahmin only.
(2) That the pollution was probably observed on ceremonial occassions only.
IV
If these conclusions are right then this is a case of Impurity as distinguished from Untouchability. The distinction between the Impure and the Untouchable is very clear. The Untouchable pollutes all while the Impure pollutes only the Brahmin. The touch of the Impure causes pollution only on a ceremonial occasion. The touch of the Untouchable causes pollution at all times.
There is another argument to which so far no reference has been made which completely disproves the theory that the communities mentioned in the Dharma Sutras were Untouchables.
Kalyanaraman
I had promised to send in a supplementary note. Here it is.
Attached are documents related to the California Text Books in CAPEEM law suit.
These extraordinary documents correctly refuse to acknowledge any wrong on the part of Hindus or Hinduism. As I had mentioned before, jaati as a social institution is our social capital, a social security system.
I advise HAF to draft all documents in future in this style. These documents are hard-hitting, non-apologetic and will give no room for mischief-mongering by self-styled ‘experts’ of anti-hindu hate groups.
The motion to strike off the (California School Board of Education) department’s ‘expert’ in the CAPEEM law suit is a tour de force. It humiliates the ‘expert’ by pointing out that he is unreliable, as Manusmriti is from the second century according to the ‘expert’ himself while the topic of caste in textbooks he seeks to provide evidence for has a date of 1000 BCE.
At the minimum, HAF should have gone through these documents and earlier efforts to counter caste-bashing of Hindu traditions, before venturing into a fool-hardy enterprise of producing a report. I had already requested that this HAF report be taken out, withdrawn, before further damage is done by trying to defend what I called a ‘half-baked report’.
To cast caste as a human rights issue is a mistake. A human rights issue arises when the state has no laws. This is not the case here. This reason alone suffices for HAF to withdraw their report. I don’t want to waste readers’ time citing UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
We have the larger domain of Dharma as the enshrining of human responsibility as opposed to claptrap on ‘human rights’.
Kalyanaraman
Attached are the documents related to caste that were filed by CAPEEM in the court. One of the documents is not related to caste but is the expert report of Prof. Joe Barnhart regarding biblical indoctrination in textbooks. The other documents are as follows:
1) Expert report by Nathan Katz
2) Prof. Bajpai’s rebuttal of Defendant’s expert
3) Motion to Strike opponent’s expert due to his lack of expertise
4) Response to the weak defense put up by the defendant’s expert
5) Verses from the Bible to prove that the idea pollution on touch originated in the Bible and the idea is not an Indian characteristic
6) Prof. Joe Barnhart’s report on biblical indoctrination
Documents 2, 3 and 4 listed above utterly humiliate the expert of the Department of Education and show up his amateurish understanding of his subject as well as the law. These documents are must reads as they clearly show the incompetent nature of this so-called expert and make for enjoyable reading (especially the Strike Motions). CAPEEM makes strong arguments regarding untouchables and refuses to allot any blame to Hindus or Indians.
Attachments:
| StrikeMotionFiled.pdf 57K View Download |
| ReplyToResponse-FILED.pdf 31K View Download |
| Bajpai-Response.pdf 642K View Download |
| Katz-Report-CV-Exhibits.pdf 952K View Download |
| Bible-Verses-For-Reference.pdf 94K View Download |
| Barnhart-Report-CV.pdf 340K View Download |
Now that the debate on caste has been joined, I request HAF to put their draft report in a secure location for further deliberations among concenred HIndus, without making it available to our enemies who will misuse it.
I have already sent in two notes on the experience we had and the lessons we have learnt on the jaati issue in California Text book case. This should provide a good framework for taking on the mischief-mongers who want to use ‘caste’ as an issue to beat the hindus with and promote evangelical activities.
Together with the perceptions provided by Dharam Pal (as summarised by Sanjeev ji), there is enough material to come up with a non-apologetic response to the machinations in the US Congress led by evangelist groups.
There ain’t no caste discrimination in Bharatam. The repeated use of the phrase should be avoided. This should be made clear to the mischief-mongers of the Dalit Freedom Network types that jaati is a celebration of social responsibility in Hindu tradition.
As the US Congress to name one society in the whole world which does not have problems created by economic discriminations. To attribute to an amorphous term called ‘caste’ all anecdotes of discriminations in India is a mistake.
Jaati is a profound social institution, the social capital and a social security system of an extended family. We don’t need US Congress to tell us, using concocted ‘human rights’ mumbo-jumbo. Leave us alone to organize our samajam. Let the US Congressmen re-read Will Durant on what travails India has gone through during the colonial onslaughts which also resulted in the mischievous categorizations of Indian samajam into ’castes’ derived from Portuguese ‘casta’.
From: Sanjeev Nayyar <esamskritiDOTsuryaconsulting.net>
Date: Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:35 PM
Subject: A different view on Caste. My 2007 article Hindustan Times
To: HARAN BR <haran.brDOTgmail.com>, kalyan97DOTgmail.com,mihirDOThafsite.org, aseemDOThafsite.org
Namaskar,
Kaveri Bazmi in India Today called Karna a dalit. Baba Ramadevi is a Yadav like Lalu Prasad and Mulayam Yadav so he is a Dalit. Oh forgot Lord Krishna was a Yadav so he is also a Dalit. First the British and now the Yadav’s/Congress/sections of the media are out to divide India vertically.
My article below gives a different perspective on caste. Gandhian Dharampal reproduced survey reports done by the British around 1830 to state that the largest nos of scholars in schools in Madras Presidency were Sudras http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/Indigeneous-Education-in-the-18th-century-1.aspx.
with regards
sanjeev
When caste was not a bad word
By Sanjeev Nayyar. Article appeared in Hindustan Times, Mumbai on June 4, 2007.
http://www.esamskriti.com/essay-chapters/When-caste-was-not-a-bad-word-1.aspx
Were caste equations always as bad as they are today? Not quite. There were always castes but they were not backward.
Now that the Supreme Court has referred the matter of 27% reservations to a Constitutional Bench it might be worthwhile revisiting certain historical truths. Proponents of the 27% reservation for OBCs argue that reservations would help them overcome centuries of discrimination! However, if such animosity really existed between the forwards and backwards, how could the Indian Civilization have thrived for over 5,000 years?
A noted Gandhian, Dharampal visited British & Indian archives and reproduced reports of Surveys undertaken by the British in Bengal, Punjab and Madras Presidency (1800-1830). According to Collectors reports reviewed by Governor Sir Thomas Munro on 10/3/1826, of the 30,211 male school students in Madras Presidency 20% were Brahmins and Chettris, 9% were Vaishyas,50% were Sudras, 6% were Muslims and others were 15%. Madras Presidency then consisted of areas that fall in modern day Tamil Nadu, A.P, Orissa, Kerala and Karnataka. Another report by J Dent, Secretary, Fort Geroge dated 21/2/1825 stated that out of 1,88,680 scholars in all collectorates of Madras Presidency Brahmins were 23% while Sudras constituted 45%.
Startling as it may sound, these percentages establish that Sudras not Brahmins comprised the majority of students and scholars. How & Why do the Backward Classes find themselves in the situation they are today?
Before British rule, traditionally, educational institutions were funded by revenue contributions made by the community and State. About one third of the total revenue (from agriculture & sea ports) was assigned for the requirements of social & cultural infrastructure (including education). This system stayed mainly intact through all previous political turmoils. The British, however, increased the quantum of land revenue and adversely changed the terms of payment for the community. They centralized collection of revenue, leaving hardly any revenue to pay for social and cultural infrastructure.
Further, the means of the manufacturing classes (small scale enterprises or SME in today’s parlance) were greatly diminished by the introduction of European goods. Craftsmen especially those engaged in the making of cloth, manufacture and mining of metals, construction work were through fiscal and other devices reduced to a state of homelessness.
Sapped for funds, educational institutions and manufacturing classes became history, leading to grave consequences. One, it obliterated literacy and knowledge amongst the Indian people. Two, it destroyed the Indian social balance in which, traditionally, persons from all sections of society appear to have received a significant degree of schooling. Three, this destruction along with economic plunder led to great deterioration in the status, socio-economic conditions and personal dignity of those, now known as scheduled castes; and to a lesser degree, that of the vast peasant majority encompassed by the term ‘backward castes’.
From about the end of the 19th century, various factors began to attempt a reversal of the results of British policy. This led to what are now known as backward caste movements. The manner, in which their objectives are presented however, seems to suggest that the ‘backward’ status they are struggling against is some ancient phenomenon. In reality, however, their cultural and economic backwardness (as distinct from their ritualistic status on specific occasions) is post 1800, and what basically all such movements are attempting to achieve is the restoration of the position, status, and rights of these peoples prior to 1800.
Dharampal wrote in ‘Rediscovering India’, “For the British, as perhaps for some others before them, caste has been a great obstacle, in fact, an unmitigated evil not because the British believed in casteless ness or subscribed to non-hierarchical system but because it stood in the way of their breaking Indian society, hindered the process of atomization, and made the task of conquest and governance more difficult”.
The interest in caste peaked around 1891 when the census came out with what were termed as Index of Castes. The word ‘caste’ is of Spanish origin and fails to capture the meaning of the Indian term, “jati,” which more properly translated as “community.” Jati in traditional India promoted and preserved diversity and multiculturalism by allotting every jati a particular space and role in society so that no jati would be appropriated or dominated by another. America, which has long glorified the ideal of a “melting pot” of one assimilated culture, is now coming to see the value of the “salad bowl” model, in which different cultures co-exist in harmony. The epitome of this model was the Indian jati system, revealing that our ancient practices are relevant to the modern world. Moreover, the jati system was integral to the survival of the Indian nation: in Swami Vivekananda’s words: “Caste is an imperfect institution no doubt. But if it had not been for caste, you would have had no Sanskrit books to study. This caste made walls, around which all sorts of invasions rolled and surged but found it impossible to breakthrough.”
So, the widespread notion that discrimination in opportunity for education existed for millennia is a dangerous misconception that clouds our policies and threatens the real progress of the backwards castes.
The logical next steps are that, one, caste based reservations must come with a sunset clause as was envisaged in the Indian Constitution. Two, since economic deprivation has led to backwardness, economic backwardness should be the basis of reservation. The apex court has said that the creamy layer in OBCs must be denied reservations.
The reservations policy and caste-based politics of the last sixty years have managed to make people more aware of and narrowly identified by their caste, rather than focusing on true social and economic integration. Instead of increasing supply of education facilities, successive Governments have over regulated the sector, stifling its growth. Under the guise of protecting SME’s, government policy has made them less efficient and does not allow economies of scale.
The words Caste and Class have become conflated together, when in reality they refer to different phenomena. Also, the nomenclature used to describe the backward classes keeps changing. In the 1890s they were called The Depressed Classes. In the early 1930’s, Gandhi named them Harijans. The Government of India Act 1935 introduced the words Scheduled Castes for the first time. Since the 1990s, the word Dalit has come into prominence.
Jats are a backward community in Rajasthan but a very powerful community in neighboring Punjab. Is there a comprehensive national definition of who constitutes an OBC?
There are multiple solutions to the Reservation problem that need to be pursued simultaneously. One, Government should focus on primary education only. Two, it must lay down a transparent regulatory framework for higher education. This would increase investment in education across various sectors. Three; it must lay emphasis on vocational training that would make a graduate employable. It should support institutions that provide short term courses in retail, financial planning, analytics and pharma. Once supply is enhanced and identity based reservation eclipsed, India will have an egalitarian educational system where the only affirmative action will be financial assistance to economically weaker students.
With so much emphasis on education I remember Mark Twain’s words, “I do not allow my schooling to interfere with my education.”
Sanjeev Nayyar is a Management Consultant and founder www.esamskriti.com.
Forwarded herewith is a well-articulated monograph by Prof. Gautam Sen ji (Special Rep, HDAS, UK) on the political implications of HAF report on caste.
Methinks, HAF should consider withdrawing the report.
We don’t need US Congress to adjudicate on matters concerning Hindu samajam. Jaati ain’t no human rights issue. Jaati is our social capital, social security system. Hindu samajam is vibrant enough to cope with socio-economic-political hurdles placed by motivated anti-hindu hate groups. HAF as an advocacy group should stay focussed on exposing these anti-hindu hate groups.
US Congress has no business interfering in Hindu affairs and we should not walk into the trap of making them interfere especially in the position of exalted judges who will judge us.
In Hindu tradition, jaati is a human responsibility issue, not a rights issue. If there are issues of discrimination, the Hindu samajam is capable of resolving the issues.
dhaynavaadaah.
kalyanaraman
—–Original Message—–
From: Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Dec 2010 12:24:27
Subject: HAF criticising alleged Hindu Casteism
The political implications of HAF on Caste and Hinduism
Any discussion on caste really pertains to India since it is of
marginal significance for Hindus in Europe and North America. One must therefore provide an a priori justification as to why Indians should be guided by measures recommended from abroad. This matter of principle does not concern the substance of any recommended policies, which may be good or bad, but the reason why they should be advanced by Hindus from abroad, but adopted by Indians living in India. It is a major issue of principle that cannot be evaded. And the fact that it is easy to find Hindus from within India to offer validation to proposals does not change the essential point because the initiative lies abroad. Indeed garnering support from within India makes the enterprise even more suspect as a consequence. My own concern is that people living away from their homeland are necessarily susceptible to socialisation by local ideological imperatives though it does not mean every single individual succumbs. These ideological certainties are likely to be hostile to the interests of their country of origin and perspectives emanating from a locale like the US, which has harboured incredible enmity towards independent India and continues to do so, are potentially harmful as a result. One must therefore exerciseb unusual caution although there is no good solution to the issue since people of goodwill cannot be required to stop thinking and writing.
However, I suggest that, as a matter of principle, any such attempt to wade into issues with policy imperatives tagged onto them and which might amount to injunctions or, worse still, diktats are unacceptable. Only Indians living in India are qualified to initiate and make policy for themselves because the outcomes primarily affect them and that is the appropriate democratic procedure. And it is they who have the right to make their own mistakes and experience their own learning process. This is not to suggest that Indians abroad cannot and should not hold opinions on subjects that interest them, but it is beholden to them exercise more than a measure of self-restraint when they take to preaching. And it is absolutely imperative for them not to engage in cavalier fashion with issues of paramount importance to people in India because that really smacks of arrogance that could be regarded as stemming from the wealth and status enjoyed by residing in a wealthy country as a professional. I am one of these very people, who have lived away for nearly 41 years and constantly write on Indian subjects. However, I regard myself as a lowly foot soldier operating from what to me, metaphorically speaking, is enemy territory and with due respect for those whose personal interests are tied to Indian soil.
The issue that remains critical is the political context and the consequences of particular debates and proposals. Nothing undertaken is politically innocent and it is absolutely imperative to retain this reality in mind when engaging with complex issues like Caste and espousing positions and advancing recommendations. The issue of Caste is a profoundly political question and not for the obvious reason that it affects all Hindus in some way or another. Discussions on Caste are, first and foremost, ideological weapons in the wider struggle for political supremacy and domination between white Christian nations, led by the imperialist USA and its victims, Hindus. I do not mention Islam because its enmity towards Hindus is unabashed and repeated in countless Pakistani and Arab publications. The US and India have been at loggerheads since the early 1950s and those unfamiliar with this history should desist from pontificating on intellectual cleavages that are part of the arsenal in the struggle between the Hindus of India and the imperialist USA. The Church is a mere subaltern agent in this deadly contest for domination and subjugation and primarily an instrument of State policy, as it has been since the loss of its ability to dictate to European States several centuries ago. The fact that individual Christian participants in this arena may be morally upright and motivated to spread the word god, though that itself is an expression of sectarian intolerance, is irrelevant. The aggressive
protagonist is unfailingly the State and as it happens in this particular competition, the US State. Hence, the idea that decent conduct and carefully delineated argument will alter the course of
this contest is naïve in the extreme. The USA is a country that inserted live snakes into the private parts of captive Vietcong women and has had no compunction recently presiding over the murder of 1.4 million Iraqis. Hindus are not special in any sense in their scheme of things except that are proving difficult to subjugate, despite determined efforts for over 60 years. If living in the USA makes it difficult to swallow this harsh truth nothing more remains to be discussed.
Neither is the issue of who can presume to speak on behalf of the Hindus of India is not an abstract matter of principle alone though I regard the principle involved as paramount. It is a conviction that stems from direct personal experience of the serious problems that arise when Indians abroad seek to act on behalf of their brethren in India. On two separate occasions, during the last decade or so, Hindu activists in the UK sought to sign accords with the Anglican Church concerning what legitimate forms religious conversion could take. I was staggered when the already initialled document was sent to me by a lawyer opposed to it. The document could have been regarded as laughable had it not entailed the potentially serious consequence of politically compromising Hindus permanently.
The accord amounted to acceptance of conversion as legitimate, provided there was no coercion involved. Of course what amounted to coercion was undefined and it contained choice phrases like ‘freedom to share one’s religion’, which is a standard Church code for legitimating evangelical activity. There was no recognition that it is the legitimacy of evangelical activity (as distinct from religious conversion, per se) that is in insurmountable dispute, closely tied as
it is to coercion, when the latter is carefully enumerated. And nor is it an established right under Indian law, though evangelists constantly assert to the contrary. But this was being bartered away by people who did not have command over the English language and could not comprehend the many loaded phrases the document contained. They were all virtually semi-literate, which I state as a matter of fact rather than mere prejudice though I do not deny the latter sensibility when dealing with such nonsense. The signing was vetoed by the late Seshadri-ji of the RSS and I earned the ire of many British Hindu activists. I subsequently learned that an American Hindu ‘convert’ of some considerable public fame had been counselling them to sign the accord. I therefore concluded he was an intelligence infiltrator and that should surprise no one. Hindus are at war, a reality difficult for many to swallow, and the enemy is engaged in a no-holds barred effort to dis-empower Hindus. Caste issues are a handy weapon being deployed by them as it has in the long history of deadly conflict between Hindus and Christian militarism.
Let me add that virtually an identical attempt was made yet again in the recent past by the very same people to sign almost the same accord on religious conversion. This time it was unceremoniously halted by an unambiguous imprimatur from the most senior leader of the VHP. I am therefore led to believe that some of these earnest British Hindus active in official bodies had been compromised by local intelligence services (a good number are engaged in VAT fraud and susceptible to blackmail) and/or in receipt of bribes from Church quarters. Let me remind you once again that the most prominent Hindu political activist in Europe had once publicly proclaimed that in the event of war between India and the UK, Hindus should fight for their country of adoption, Britain. I won’t repeat my earlier political and sociological analysis of this remarkable statement, but only point out that any invasion of India, resulting from military conflict, would occur with Pakistani help through Karachi and into Gujarat. It is poignant to imagine members of Britain’s East African community emerging from barges en route to kill their own kin! The simple fact of the matter is that there can be no dialogue with any Church denomination or Islamic institutions despite the penchant of so many Hindus for something called interfaith dialogue. Neither of these two dispensations has officially and formally affirmed the legitimacy of Hinduism and thus all interaction with them is in utter bad faith.
They first need to make a grovelling apology for their legion crimes against Hindus and polytheists and amend their founding texts before they dare engage us! And Hindus should acquire spiritual, political self-confidence as well as the coercive means to dispense with the need for certification from their duplicitous sworn enemies, the Church in all its forms and Islam.
I regret that the HAF document fails in its basic duty of care (reason enough to be struck off practising medicine for anything analogous) and demonstrates a lack of essential knowledge and elementary logic. The first and most blatant ideological difficulty is that Caste does not define Hinduism, but the critics of Hinduism, both Christian and Muslim antagonists and Hindus dependent on them for their livelihood, have long defined Hinduism in terms of Caste. It recalls a telling point made by Voltaire that the term Pagan, now an established ascription, was never used by polytheists as a description of themselves, but a term of abuse employed against them by Christians. In this context, despite citing Nicholas R. Dirks’ important book you do not highlight his main contention that colonial enumeration of Caste identities to categorise Indians, to better exercise political control over them, hardened its previously fluid boundaries.
Furthermore, HAF’s eagerly announced opposition to Caste-based discrimination, a phrase that recurs constantly in the text, is not defined except to occasionally conflate it with untouchability. This is very important because in all types of discrimination between social groups, some are types of discriminatory conduct are unethical and others illegal, but they are not identical and India has outlawed virtually all conceivable acts of discrimination susceptible to legal remedy. It appears what you might have in mind is more accurately identified as segregation. Paradoxically, in opposing Caste discrimination you are effectively opposing the positive
discrimination in favour of Dalits and other supposedly backward groups in Indian society that dates back to the 1930s. All the contemporary legislative discrimination (don’t use a term that
instantly controverts your fundamental stance) is against the demonised upper Castes, already in itself the counterpart of anti-Semitism because of its egregiously indiscriminate and timeless
ascription of alleged crimes of oppression to whole groups of people. No matter how impeccably an individual member of the upper castes may behave in their personal life they are imputed the alleged criminality of their forebears, stretching back to time immemorial. This is how it was for Jews throughout their history, with accusations of cannibalism to poisoning wells that ended in genocide. You also appear to believe such Caste discrimination is widespread in rural India, a typical urban prejudice though actual variations in the prevalence of Caste consciousness are most clearly geographical, least prominent in Bengal, the Punjab and Maharashtra and urban conurbations increasingly.
The mundane and vicious politicisation of India’s Caste politics, long promoted by the very evangelists you approvingly credit with mitigating Caste discrimination, has made a mockery of the carefully engineered social change sought on behalf of Dalits by its original protagonists, including the astute B. R. Ambedkar. Perhaps your proposal to end all Caste discrimination is intended to favour disadvantaged children of the fifty or so Brahmin public latrine cleaners in Delhi who might then be treated like human beings and allowed entry into higher education on par with those of wealthy OBC Yadav ministers! Often their crime is to emerge from modest
socio-economic backgrounds to excel in public examinations, of which Muslims complained bitterly even in the late nineteenth century and demanded quotas. The assumption that Brahmins were always privileged oppressors is an evangelist Christian libel that one should absolutely refute without compelling empirical evidence to the contrary. A study by Cambridge historian Anil Seal, a reliable informant in this regard since he holds no brief for India or Hindus, being unscrupulously hostile to them both, found that half the Brahmins of Calcutta in the first decade of the twentieth century were cooks, for reasons that were clearly religious in origin. But hardly the profession of a powerful oppressor group, deserving of the ugly pogroms that targeted Brahmins in Maharashtra after 1948!
But is there such ignorance that it cannot recognised that the same Christian Churches that seek to deploy India’s Caste fractures to promote the political goals of their own home governments, had little trouble with lynchings in the America south only forty or so years ago and South African apartheid? Nothing Hindus have done compares with the role of the Catholic Church in the genocide in Rwanda during 1994 and its massive perpetration of paedophilia across the world. And why are Christians not demonstrating outside the White House against the scale of imprisonment of African Americans within their own Christian country instead of shedding crocodile tears about alleged Casteism? The need for Hindus today is to be ruthlessly lucid and politically focused in the way Stalin’s generals were as they faced the threat of physical extinction as a people and responded with merciless determination against the Nazis as well as enemies within.
It is imperative to note that Christian evangelists never refer to the massive social changes that have overtaken India during the twentieth century and the relentless efforts of Hindu reformers (many of the them upper caste) for the upliftment of the downtrodden in their midst, beginning with Gopal Krishna Gokhale (not Mahatma Gandhi as it happens) and Ram Mohan Roy earlier. But the efforts of Hindus themselves to combat the evil of untouchability and social iniquity and the political empowerment of Dalits in Indian states like UP and the fact of OBC-dominated polities across Indian is studiously ignored. They are an inconvenient reality when the main purpose is to harvest souls because Hinduism is beyond the pale and cannot do anything for itself. And the moment Christians (or Muslims) are in a majority in any part of India (e.g. Nagaland and Mizoram, parts of Bengal) the celebration of Hindu rituals is prevented by armed gangs of Christians and Muslims, their co-conspirators when it comes to shafting Hindus! As one Mizo Christian woman in Delhi explained to me politely last year: ‘they are uncomfortable with the Hindu ethos’.
Church representatives in the UK and their shameful Hindu/Sikh collaborators have been active since last year, seeking to outlaw, by including ’Caste discrimination’ (the very unfortunate phrase HAF employs) within the all-encompassing Equality Bill that will conform to a host of broader EU directives. Outlawing of alleged Caste discrimination in the UK, for which there is no evidence whatsoever, is clearly a conspiratorial prelude to its official repudiation by the UN, a measure being mendaciously thrust forward by the deracine ex-Hindu, South African High Court judge, Navi Pillay of the UNHRC. One particularly malicious Indian member of the British parliament has been mobilising alleged Sikh Dalits (a non sequitur) against mainstream Sikhs, falsely accusing their Gurdwaras of ‘Caste discrimination’ though Caste issues are of infinitesimal significance within Sikhism. This vile conspiracy is not an accident or misunderstanding since that is exactly what the Church has been doing for centuries to demoralise Hindus and occupy their country permanently. Ask yourself why Korean Buddhists, who have become a minority in their own home, are up in arms today about the deliberate abandonment of their public rituals in what is now effectively a Christian country? For them it is always, ‘I am the way’ and the only way! There is absolutely no point for Christian evangelists to engage in discussion of Caste unless its enables the harvesting of souls and the political subjugation of Hindus to white Christian imperialism, namely the USA. I am waiting to have a Hindu from the US correct me on this score by berating me for not recognising that these vicious evangelists are only trying to reform Hinduism, an underlying implication of the deeply troubling HAF praise for their work in India.
The British and American governments have actively promoted Khalistani terrorists in the past and their leader, Jagjit Singh Chauhan, declared independence from British soil (the city of Birmingham) the day Dhaka fell to Indian forces and the surrender document was extracted from the defeated Pakistani army by General JFR Jacob. Creating lethal divisions within Sikhism would open another devastating front inside the Indian body politic on behalf of Pakistan by its Anglo-American patrons. And I see no compelling evidence of a change in Anglo-American policy despite the expectations of many to the contrary in the aftermath of 9/11. In case you are unaware, the Khalistani bombers who downed Air India’s Kanishka over the Irish Sea were sent from Pakistan to the US and trained by the CIA (confirmed on camera by a senior CIA official and the evidence is in the possession of the GoI). As a consequence, the inference of one interlocutor that this flawed mea culpa on Caste will prompt invitation to the HAF by the US Congress is naïve in the extreme. The US Congress is an organ of a racist, imperial power and their invitation to vicious nonentities like Angana Chatterji (whose hostility towards US institutions does not deter invitations to the US Congress because she is specifically tasked to undermine Hindus) and John Dayal is not the product of ignorance or inadvertence. Such anti-Hindu creatures are chosen with care because they promote an evangelical agenda wholeheartedly supported by most US Congressional members.
I am elaborating this material at some length because the political context is vital when the real or imagined ills of a society are publicly scrutinized in conjunction with third parties that are
actually your enemies. For the first time in its independent history, the government of India has failed to officially oppose the egregiously deadly proposal floated by the lowly Navi Pillay of the
NHRC to condemn Caste as a form of racism, presumably because India has been seized by a Catholic dynasty from within. Is this the company HAF has inadvertently ended up joining by virtue of sheer ignorance and political cupidity? Is HAF unable to recognise that at this moment Hindus are fighting for their very survival as a religious dispensation under the shadow of the Nehru dynasty and in a way that had not occurred even under the sword of Aurangzeb because that asuric demon was successfully confronted on the battlefield by Maratha, Jat and Sikh warriors?
White Church representatives are in Iraq and Afghanistan at this very moment, supporting their own governments, engaged in something akin to genocide in the case of Iraq, with a 1.4 million dead (John Hopkins study, using US DOD methodology) owing to the Anglo-American invasion.
It is worth recalling that the Archbishop of Canterbury’s envoy to the Lebanon in 1987 turned out to have been hand in glove with Anglo-American intelligence services, held hostage himself when the kidnappers of the journalist whose release he was sent to negotiate, found a tracking device in his matted hair! The various Church denominations are all pretty much integral to the Western state system and their imperialist activities (is this something HAF declines to recognise as a historical phenomenon?) and have been from the time of Emperor Constantine. The Vatican was and remains a state that had armies, participated in wars throughout its long and ugly history and illegitimate heirs of supposedly celibate Popes often succeeded to rule. Their great thinkers, including both Thomas Aquinas and the dissident Martin Luther, approved torture and brutal murder of apostates and pagans and that is exactly what the Portuguese followers of the former practised with blood thirsty enthusiasm on invading Goa, burning, flaying and spearing alive Brahmins and their families with abandon. They were extinguishing the leaders of Hindu society and then quickly enslaved the supposed victims of Caste oppression once the conquest had succeeded. Condemnation of alleged Caste oppression by a basically powerless group, the Brahmins, living under the shadow of brutal Islamic rule, was a handy ideological weapon. Today, the dominant political forces in India are OBCs, Dalits and Muslims, for whom communists are quite openly surrogates (Maoists praised the 26/11 massacre and only regretted that Muslims also died) and the real nerves of political power at the Centre reside with covert representatives of the Vatican. The ideological ruse of denouncing Upper Caste oppression remains alive and well though it is now couched in drawing room politesse, but on the entry of imperial soldiery into a conquered country old-fashioned mass murder, rape and mayhem will resurface.
To return to what appears to me to be the essence of the HAF’s apologetic mea culpa on Caste, which in the way it is articulated seems not-so subliminally addressed to a racist Christian audience. I use the term racist very consciously because I wish to counter pose it ideologically to Caste though the latter is not its Hindu counterpart as the repository of a virulent creed. White races still wield most instruments of political, military and ideological power in the world that imposes their hierarchic racist vision of social and economic organisation. Although racism has gone underground somewhat in the past two decades, supremacist racist ideology absolutely defines Western European culture regardless of its geographical locale and is always ready to reassert its inhuman prerogatives. The reach of this self-serving ideological perspective of a racially defined Western human architecture is almost universal and not merely confined to white societies, which means that even small town India has been penetrated by its pervasive distorted ideological consciousness. Non Europeans unthinkingly echo and repeat the dominant white ethos that affirms their own subalternity. Indeed both Caste consciousness as well as the resistance to it derives from the profound impact of colonisation itself. And virtually every Indian social science academic in Anglo-American universities constantly reiterates a critique of India and all things Hindu prompted by the writings of British colonialists or American Cold warriors. It is not so very complicated at all.
In this context it should be recognised that many of the documents on Caste to be found on the Internet, adorning innocuous institutional affiliations and titled academic respectability, seem to be generated from the same evangelist database. I sense an echo of their calculated machinations in the HAF report since they are easily picked up by scribes looking for quotes and information with which they are unfamiliar themselves. In addition, the paradox of the HAF plea on Caste is that it espouses a set secular sentiments and prejudices unconsciously inspired by socialisation within the instrumental Western political paradigm of domination and its associated intellectual milieu. And it seeks to validate them through an extremely superficial reading of Hinduism and without any serious grounding in the complex secular intellectual discourse on Caste and practice that it wants to influence. Since others have pointed out the gross intellectual failings of the HAF exegesis on Caste I reserve myself to expressing surprise that the august experts, who have supposedly examined it thoroughly, have made a multiplicity of faux pas in their scholarship. Mention is made of M. S. Srinivas and Nicholas R. Dirks on Caste, though why not the theorist G. S. Ghurye is unclear, but nothing is said of their central contentions on Caste, suggesting they have been cited to insinuate intellectual legitimacy without really bothering with what they have had to say. For example, Srinivas highlighted the fluid and dynamic essence of caste as a social institution and also rejected the notion of a rigid, pan-Indian caste system and these aspects of his analysis are pertinent to the idea of Caste discrimination. The most elementary blunder has been the failure to consult more widely, which suggests both ignorance and over confidence. In passing it might be noted that the literature on the phenomenon of white Christian domination I refer to is vast and need not detain us here. However, anyone interested might wish to consult Franz Fanon’s writings and the Afro American civil rights literature of the 1960s, all of which remains imperative for contextualising the cynical discourse on Caste.
Dr. Gautam Sen,
President, World Association of Hindu Academics,
Special Representative, HDAS, UK.
16th December 2010
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Minakshisundaram Rajagopalan <m1rajagopalanDOTgmail.com>
To: SDF <sanatanadharmaofdallasDOTyahoogroups.com>; m1rajagopalanDOTgmail.com
Sent: Fri, December 17, 2010 2:39:21 AM
Subject: Re: [SDF] Fwd: HAF Report Hinduism: Not cast in caste
Dear Sanatana Dharma fellows ,
The best way to stop this much ado about :”aste” is tell others what has been positivelt achieved by Hindus in this matter and if possible compare the less progress by other societies in this regard of discrimination.
1)Many dharmachryas like chaitanya mahaprabhu ,Raqmakrishna paramahamsa , Goplakrishna bharati etc have actually acted in a way to eradicate Caste .
2) Many Hindu festivals like the one inthe MEENAKSHI Kalyanam of Badurai city , especially on the 11th day after the start of the templle festival Where a procession of the low music and drums of low caste people are indications of sfforts by HINDUS to eradicate caste system.
3 ) The Vashinavite section especailly Ramanujacharya has done good work to eradicate caste system by giving the function of temple pooja being done by scheduled caste for one day in the yeart i some temples in Karnataka state.
4) The government of India and also the state governments in Indian states have made reservation laws to help the education etc of untouchables and thus help eradicate caste sysyem.
It is important to accepy the many efforts done by hindus themselves to eradicate caste systems. Hinsus should not fail to take note of many efforts taken by hindus themselves
to eradicate caste sytem.
We should note that CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES with their fervour to convert hindus are making a big propagnada of caste as ifb they are doing a lot to help the schedule caste people but in reality they are not doing much. Their ( christian) propaganda is believed by Hindus that the missionaries are working a lot for the cause of Scheduled caste but in reality they are not doing much. THERE IS BRAHMIN CHRISTIAN , AND SCHEDULE CASTE CHRISTIAN and many varieties of castes in Christians but the news media does not give enough importance to it and thus the “caste “ is carried on.
We ( the hindus) should not self flagalte ourselves on the isuue of Caste and allow other societies to interfere freely in our affairs. WE must stand and say to others that HINDUS are making correction to the caste system.
M.Rajagopalan
On Wed, Dec 15, 2010 at 6:04 PM, S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com> wrote:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Kanchan Banerjee <kbkaliDOTyahoo.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: HAF Report Hinduism: Not cast in caste
To: Ved Chaudhary <ved.chaudharyDOTgmail.com>, Sudhir Prabhu <slprabhu1DOTyahoo.com>, Vipul Patel <patelvipulkDOTgmail.com>, Anju Bhargava <anjupbhargavaDOTgmail.com>, Rajinder Gandhi <rpgandhiDOToptonline.net>,Vikas.ChawlaDOTmorganstanley.com, Vineet Chander ISKCON <vineetchanderDOTyahoo.com>, Anant Rambachan <rambachaDOTstolafDOT>, Abhinav Dwivedi <abhinavd45DOThotmail.com>
Namaste Vedji and all,
Your note was good and useful to understand some perspectives behind the purpose of this report. We all including most dharmacharyas agree that any discrimination due to some ones jati/varna is unacceptable. Many such ‘reports’ on this have been published many times before. Actually I have a book by Shyama Prasad Mookerjee on this matter (the book is compilation of his writings and speeches). Dr. Ambedkar himself wrote so much about it and did so much! You know very well that producing a report will not solve the problem; IMHO in this case it will be detrimental) , it is about ‘solving the problems thru actions’! Swami Dayanandaji (Arya Samaj), Swami Vivekananda, Veer Savarkar and Gandhiji all worked to change and they did not merely wrote and spoke! Centuries of discrimination and ill-treatment is not going to go away just like that.. so much work has been going on for decades in India.. it will take its time.. a report can help some people to understand the issue better or a new light – that’s all it is going to do (but this report has much limitations to serve that purpose either). Laws, if implemented takes to the next level. But real grassroots level education and action, which so many Hindu groups are doing is what is needed to cure this social evil disease, and note merely an arrogant ‘authority’ and ‘popularity’-seeking approach!
This is not really a ‘caste discrimination’ issue. Everyone who is a responsible leader within Hindu society has denounced this evil. However, designating caste discrimination as a ‘human rights’ issue, internationalizing an internal social problem of Hindus and giving an impression to the public that all the individuals who have been quoted have actually ”reviewed” the report are the basic concerns we must deal with.
This report has divided the Hindu society. It will undermine the efforts of the Hindu religious and social leadership of India who are engaged in eradicating caste discrimination through social services and emotional integration. It will be used by Christian adversaries to advance their agenda of highlighting caste and caste discrimination as human rights issues in international forums.
In summary, I want to draw your attention to four points: Intent, Content, process and their behavior/Attitude
Intent:
One may say that the intentions are noble – but as several people have noted (please see the email texts quoted below from a long-drawn email-exchange among HAF members and others who are not happy with this report), who actually have worked with HAF that most of their activities are aimed towards gaining PR/brand mileage and not necessarily for the cause itself.
Content:
Many have commented on the claim that it has taken 5 years to ‘write’ this report, as a joke – it does not even take 5 weeks to ‘compile’ such a report, in their opinion.
Many people are actually writing ‘critics’ of the reports content. Hopefully we will see them soon.
References and endorsements made in the report have been written in a way to project as if the people and groups have endorsed the report. In reality many may not have read or officially endorsed it.
I’ve heard someone confirmed that Swami Dayananda-ji has NOT endorsed the report. Is this an example of serving and upholding Dharma , and one should entrust betterment of Hindu society in them?
Process:
There should have been a wid-spread discussion, debate and input from as many people/scholar/organizations as possible to make it legitimate, representative and authentic. But this was done in a way very ‘controlled’ way, as some ‘independent’ group may do. But this subject is so broad that it requires plenty of home-work not only in writing the report, but i nthe process itself to educate, get fedback, set up plans etc. But that was completely missing.
Behavior/Attitude:
This report was produced unilaterally with the blessings of few people and groups who are not the exhaustive representatives of the Hindus, especially in America. How many on this list has the privilege to read the report before the published it? Why should we support or defend such a clandestine effort? Because they have helped and supported a simple private letter (was to draw their attention to the subject), we are NOT obliged to support a far-fetching long-lasting damaging public document like this.
Since the report was out, many people have criticized it and opposed vehemently. Instead of an intention to work with them, they have attacked them personally and have started smear campaign.
So there nothing to be excited about ‘a’ report happens to be produced by a ‘new generation’ (who often has huge arrogance to publicly disrespect Hindu seniors!).
Let us neutrally think about the whole subject and I request you to then take appropriate actions in light of the information and thoughts I’m providing. I tried to avoid showing the weakness of the organization and members of HAF, but without mentioning these facts, an analysis is incomplete. And I’m not Cc-ing HAF members in this list for the simple fact that I’ve no desire or time to deal with their personal attacks and mud-slinging., as it has been happening for past few days via email.. they are not in a mood to discuss things in a professional manner!
With best regards,
Kanchan
Few Email exchanges in past few days:
“It is time to counter a half-baked HAF report based on anecdotes and hazy impressions” - this has come from a scholar.
“haf is basically a fund raising machine and self promotion PR machine. To show that funds are being well used, it has to periodically make a big splash in the media, and show how the media is covering them. Idea is to make Hindus feel proud that “our Hindu boys” are becoming prominent, as if thats a goal in itself. Rather than trying to build consensus behind the scenes BEFORE publishing a report, they started what seems to be headed towards a blog war. Not a good thing for Hindus.”
“There are multiple Hindu groups and individuals who are stake holders on an issue like caste. About ten such parties have contacted me in the past 48 hours, to express frustration at the way they got sidelined. For example, Rakesh Bahadur has issued a point by point rebuttal of the HAF report last night, for good reasons. He has worked with the Virginia school textbook people for many years fighting their treatment of caste, and make impressive headway, spending his own money all along. Now he must tell the authorities of his state why the HAF report is dead wrong. Otherwise, his entire case is lost, and he might as well run away from everything he has done all these years. HAF did not consider the impact on any other Hindu groups. There are also many such groups in UK who will need to distance themselves from the report.
We must be more concerned about Hinduism’s image than that of any one group. Either an activist group considers itself accountable to other Hindu groups, or it does not. There cannot be one-sided loyalty and protection. If it does hold itself accountable to others, then HAF should prevent future disconnects by making a formal pledge to include others and never go ahead unilaterally in this manner. If they choose not to be accountable outside their own governance (which is their choice to make), then its also fair game for other Hindus to be critical of HAF reports after the fact. They cannot have it both ways. Those who find the report undermining their own years of effort will naturally criticize it like any third-party report, in order to minimize the damage it will cause to their work.”
This has come from a young Hindu activist who was raised in this country:
“Does HAF Have Legitimacy / Authority On This:
As a person who went through elementary school in a rural area in US, many of us did face questions on caste, cows, bindi, ganges, etc. etc. etc………….Speaking on topics relevant to us here does not give us here or facing certain issues (because we may be of Indian origin) does not exactly give us the wisdom or knowledge or the authority to give recommendations of suggestions on what the caste system is or may have been in India.
I am studying Hindusim ever since I was 10 years old living in Pennsylvania, it is a complex ssue. Caste is complex in India and Indian society, it is changing and dynamic. It should take a lot of understanding and sypathetic (towards the lower oppressed castes) attitude. There are many many Indian scholars from Vivekanda to Aurobindo to Vrindaban Lal Varma to Ambedkar who has tried to analyze caste in their writings, etc……..It is rather strange that a group saying they represent us in America is suddenly so hung up on caste and anlyzing it, despite us having so many additional problems here.
Just my humble opinions………..
It is a great idea to bring the subject for debate and s permanent resolution in academics and legal institutions. Even Swami Vivekananda would say ‘A Hindu problem must be solved by theHindus only. Any outside intervention is unwanted.’ Having said that, I wanted to mention to you that Swami Vivekananda also said that ‘I’d walk miles to meet a person who really understand what the Caste and Varna is all about’. But the question is – is HAF the right organization to handle this? I’ve serious doubt about the ‘authors’ of this report of an activist type of group such as HAF.
The way you’ve put the names of people who you have alluded to have endorsed this report, is very confusing at least. Can you please clarify this: have all these people named here have read the full report and have given input and then you have asked them to review the final draft and they have said ‘yes’ to it?
You claim to represent the 2 million Hindus in America. What is the basis of this self-proclamation? How many temples or Hindu groups in American have actually endorsed you to be the representative of Hindus? If there is one body that could have claimed this is the Hindu Mandir Executive Committee (HMEC) which has representation of a large number Mandirs and religious groups. What legitimacy you have other than self-proclamation via your web-site, press releases and few reports you compile borrowing from sources without formal acknowledgments either!
Have you conducted a survey among the Hindus in America to know what they have to say about this issue in America before even publishing this report? Even if it is true that you have consulted over a dozen groups/experts in America and India, that is minuscule compared to the groups and population. How come you did not make a presentations before the Hindu bodies for input ‘Before’ publishing the report?
There is a gap between what is in a report, the intent behind compiling the report and what one plans to do with the report. What is the purpose? You say to take claim of the matter in Hindu hands. Who are you to take this in your hands? Who authorized you? Was there a proposal from the members of the WAVES conference to work with you guys? What did you do? Do you distinguish between civil rights and human rights? Why caste discrimination has become a Human rights issue?
Your representative at the Waves conference apparently said that you would take this matter to the US congress? Is it true? If so why and internal matter of the Hindus would go to Washington? Why you are not in dialogue with Indian Government? Why you undermine stringent laws which are implemented on a daily basis in India on caste related matters? Is it not it similar to Nehru going to the UN to solve Kashmir problem? Why you are supplying fodder to the Christian missionaries by giving them the legitimacy of a Hindu group endorsing their viewpoints? What would stop them from quoting your report which is apparently (I don’t believe) endorsed by Swami Dayandaji , Acharya Sabha , Chinmaya Mission and Art of Living?
This is a serious business and I’ve not seen in your efforts that you guys are capable of handling such a serious business ? There are ample issues in America to focus on. What is well-known that you hesitantly took up the text book issue in California. You’ve raised money for that. You then sent a press release saying that you had a victory in the case. Can you please verify the truth? Did you settle the case and receive funds in exchange and if yes how much and why did you settle? So what is the overall gain for the Hindus of that lawsuit? What have you done in another state to change the text books? On many other issues, you merely have sent a press release or produced a report?
Can you please give some examples of truly ‘resolving’ certain issues? I know you will give the example of Burger King matter. The world is familiar with the McDonalds case and hence one legal letter would stop anyone from doing defamatory activities like that. You claim to have a strong presence in Washington. What have you done on Hindu leader Narendra Modi’s visa? Whereas you’ve endorsed the work of Aga Khan Foundation, a staunch Islamist force in the world. So how can a Hindu trust you and have faith in you guys that you won’t mess it up just because you are capable of good PR for your group and not necessarily about Hindu matters.
So, please calm down, think seriously, in so many years of your presence what have you really accomplished other than creating a brand for your self?
I have expressed my frank opinion. I don’t want to trumpet my false ego – My records are straight. I’ve been deeply involved in the Himan rights violations in Bangaladesh and other places at the ground level. I’ve visited Bangaladesh and places in India where Hindus suffer everyday in the name of religion. I’ve been involved in many other activities to actually help the Hindu cause and Hindus in their sufferings. I don’t believe in just press releases. I believe in action and I’m talking from that experience. I expect Hindu groups not to be all talk and talk only.”
[Aseem has not responded to his questions and suggested to discuss privately]
Note from Kamlesh Kapoor-ji:
Dear Dr. Meghani,
Namaste
I was shocked to read HAF’s report about caste- its alleged origin and its role or impact today.
The evolution of the Varna and emergence of Jaatis escape the report which makes the report
a. Seriously flawed, b. lopsided and c. plain wrong in some parts.
My general comments are given below:
· A couple of years back HAF was fighting a legal battle for correct portrayal of Hinduism and Cast system in the textbooks. The designs of the Christian organizations and DFN ( a front for a church organization) were exposed.
Why are you now changing your position? Why did your erstwhile opponents suddenly become your trustworthy sources?
· What is the overall purpose of the report? What will the report do in the hands of the USA congress or the human rights agency?
· Are you asking the USA government to intervene and help Christian organizations to emancipate Hindu society? There are some hints in the report.
· When Germans were flagellated for the wrongs done by Hitler; Germans eventually made it clear that Germany’s current population has nothing to do with the lapses of the leaders half a century back.
· No child should be made to feel ashamed of the alleged lapses of his/her ancestors.
· Just to bring a parallel, if caste is an integral part of Hinduism or has its roots in Hinduism because of texts such as Manusmirti, then is anti-Semitism an integral part of Christianity? After all it’s in the text.
· When the USA faced civil rights discrimination and segregation, the reformers decried it/lamented it; ultimately the Civil Rights Bills changed discrimination. Indian Government or a black equivalent of HAF did not.
· Suggestions of foreign intervention in Indian domestic issues is a dangerous suggestion. Please consider this as a serious flaw in the report.
· A congress man once observed that if all Americans were to be of uniform race, religion and color, tomorrow, Americans will invent another reason for discrimination.
· In the end, your report will continue the textbooks’ biased portrayal- all about caste, women and Hinduism- the nexus of all evils in India. Our children (yours also) will hang their head in shame in the classrooms. Of course this will be a nuisance and embarrassment for the Indian Govt. not Hindus in India.
· We are already embarrassed by this report
I suggest that HAF should recall the report and think of real issues to fight for.
The attached document shows my comments for some statements on a few pages. Even touching on some of the problems in the report has come out like 7 pages. The normal font is your paragraphs- bold font is my comment.
Please read it carefully. I read carefully HAF’s booklet.
If you want I can send comments on all the 163 pages- will take time.
Regards,
Kamlesh Kapur
Finally a critical report from Kalyanraman-ji:
Reasons why HAF should withdraw their report on caste
I suggest that HAF may consider withdrawing their report on caste.
I will send a supplementary note on the arguments advanced in the CAPEEM case on California Text Books (for 8th grade students) which refer to caste defaming Hindu society and traditions. The same arguments will apply with equal force in asking HAF to withdraw their report on caste.
The reasons are as follows:
To say that reports of socio-economic-political discrimination sporadically reported in India is a human rights problem is an error. It is not the business of any foreign agency, including HAF to interfere in the internal affairs of the state of HIndusthan.
Caste is a remarkable social organization and constitutes the social capital of the nation. Everyone knows that caste is a term derived from Portuguese ‘casta’ which refers to ‘race, breed, lineage’ and is a baseless categorization used during the colonial regime, to designate some social institutions in Hindu society. If at all a term has to be used to designate the traditional artisan or industrial guilds, the term should be jaati used in the Indian traditions.
There is a superb concept called ADHIKAARA in Indian tradition. This adhikaara comes from discharging one’s responsibility in a chosen issue related to the samajam. HAF no track-record of getting immersed in Hindu samajam to understand how great an institution jaati is as an extended family and providing a community-regulated social security system for the members of the extended family. This is social engineering par excellence for creating social capital.
Methinks HAF lacks the adhikaara to write this report on caste. Hindu samajam will take care of its problems without HAF help.
Before talking about human rights HAF will do well to underscore human responsibility exemplified by jaati and strengthening this social institution, this social capital.
HAF report is a mistake and will have undesirable consequences since HAF has walked into the trap of the evangelists calling caste (jaati) a human rights issue. This is what they have been demanding and HAF is seen to be playing jalra to this demand. Most unfortunate because HAF has lost credibility to act as advocacy group for the hindu cause.
In a criminal charge made by some organizations which have been clearly identified as emanating from the Dominus Jesus initiative of Ratzinger, the best defence is to deny mischievous, motivated allegations made by diabolical vested interests such as those operating as evangelist groups. Any internal criticisms among Hindus will be taken advantage, for example, by the rascals operating from colorado as Dalit Freedom Network.
For me, jaati is social capital and proud of the samajam which venerates jaati as a social insurance for the members of an extended family.
Instead HAF is damaging the Hindu cause by such half-baked advocacy. So, questions are being asked. What is in it for HAF directors?
I acknowledge the inputs provided by Shri Arvind Kumar. He has dug out the Ambedkar quotes and Bible verses.
These are the inputs provided by Arvind Kumar to me as well as HAF which HAF will do well to take into account while withdrawing the flawed report on caste:
On caste, my take is that the source of the idea of untouchables is the Bible. I will explain why I say this at the end but please read through the points I list.
1) The most important texts in Hinduism were written by those who would be considered untouchables by the West (Veda Vyasa, Valimiki, Thiruvalluvar). Other holy people too have come from so-called low castes. e.g.: Kannappa Nayanar.
2) Ambedkar in his book on Untouchables clearly exonerates Hinduism. He clearly analyzes verses in Hinduism and points out that Hindu texts do not contain any advocacy of untouchability. What they have is merely ritual purity.
3) There was clearly no oppression at least till the sixth century. So Hinduism or Hindu society cannot be blamed.
4) Percival Spear points out that what we see in the current form crystallized in the 12th century (thanks to the Islamic invaders).
5) Of the texts cited by the West, Hinduism pre-dates them by centuries.
6) Varna system is NOT oppressive. Proof: Indonesia has the varna system and not the jaati system. The society is egalitarian there.
7) Important sages today are from the so-called lower castes. e.g.: Mata Amritanandamayi. Seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4172328.stm – this proves that the West considers her to be of low caste but Indians revere her.
8) Gods too have come from the cowherd caste – e.g.: Krishna
9) Muslims (in their mosques) teach that other humans are unclean.
10) There are untouchables in Yemen today.
Excerpt from the article at http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=25634
“Clean your plate if it is touched by a dog, but break it if it’s touched by a Khadem [meaning servant in Arabic].” This traditional saying expresses the contempt by mainstream society in Yemen against members of the Akhdam community.
…
After their defeat and expulsion in the sixth century, the remnants of the Ethiopian army that stayed on were reduced to slaves by the native population.
11) There were untouchables in Japan. This system arose soon after Christianity became significant in Japan and faded away when Christianity was defeated by the Samurai.
12) There are untouchables in Islam. Sunday school exam from the website of a mosque in New Jersey:
http://www.imamalimasjid.com/students/exam2006withanswers.htm
But every part of a dog, pig or kafir is najis.
13) Caste is a portuguese word and the Portuguese codified a lot of rules and imposed them on various castes in India. They simply mapped what they had in Europe to India. The British too did this to some extent.
14) To claim that the system of castes is an oppressive system is wrong. If that were the case, why would Reddys or Chettiars be very proud of their caste?
15) Samaritans in the Bible were untouchables.
16) Below are the biblical verses that contain rules on hereditary pollution, indirect pollution and segregation. Stunningly, these rules are similar to what we see today (including in churches). Thus these are the ONLY religious texts that endorse the system. They are also the OLDEST source of the oppressive practice.
Numbers 19
19:16
And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
19:17
And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
19:18
And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
19:19
And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
19:20
But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.
19:21
And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.
19:22
And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean ; and the soul that toucheth it shall beunclean until even.
Here are some from the New Testament showing that ‘pollution’ is hereditary.
1 Corinthians
7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
2 Corinthians
6:14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
From these texts drawn from the Dharma Sutras as well as Manu, the following points are clear :-
(1) That the pollution by the touch of the Chandala was observed by the Brahmin only.
(2) That the pollution was probably observed on ceremonial occassions only.
IV
If these conclusions are right then this is a case of Impurity as distinguished from Untouchability. The distinction between the Impure and the Untouchable is very clear. The Untouchable pollutes all while the Impure pollutes only the Brahmin. The touch of the Impure causes pollution only on a ceremonial occasion. The touch of the Untouchable causes pollution at all times.
There is another argument to which so far no reference has been made which completely disproves the theory that the communities mentioned in the Dharma Sutras were Untouchables.
Kalyanaraman
From: Ved Chaudhary <ved.chaudharyDOTgmail.com>
To: Sudhir Prabhu <slprabhu1DOTyahoo.com>; Vipul Patel <patelvipulkDOTgmail.com>; Anju Bhargava <anjupbhargavaDOTgmail.com>; Kanchan Banerjee <kbkaliDOTyahoo.com>; Mihir Meghani <mihirDOThafsite.org>; Rajinder Gandhi <rpgandhiDOToptonline.net>;Vikas.ChawlaDOTmorganstanley.com; Vineet Chander ISKCON <vineetchanderDOTyahoo.com>; Suhag Shukla <suhagDOThafsite.org>; Anant Rambachan <rambachaDOTstolafDOT>; Abhinav Dwivedi <abhinavd45DOThotmail.com>
Sent: Tue, December 14, 2010 10:47:04 PM
Subject: HAF Report Hinduism: Not cast in caste
Namaskar.
By now all of you must have seen the report on the caste system that HAF had issued last week.
As you were signatories to the letter to the Acharya Sabha that we sent earlier this year in March 2010
on the subject of caste system in India, I urge you to please read the report thoroughly.
I hope you will support the initiative that we had undertaken earlier this year
and that HAF is carrying forward with much wider impact.
Ofcourse this is a very controversial issue with many Hindu leaders who accept status quo.
HAF has taken a very bold and courageous step by issuing this report on this very touchy subject -
to force a change in the status quo.
Due to reticence (or total denial) of the Hindu leadership in India (and here) on the subject,
the caste issue has been discussed in many important fora exclusively by anti-Hindus -
the evangelical Christian leaders and the leftist academics/Marxists.
And thats what the world hears about the caste issue – from these anti-Hindus – that Hinduism is all about the caste system.
Thats what is contained in the textbooks and most literature written by Westerners up till now.
This reticence/denial strategy has not been a prudent strategy from the Hindu point of view, for the Hindu cause.
The most significant impact of the HAF report is that, from now on, Hindus will be on the table, in the panels whenever, wherever this issue is discussed and be able to provide a balanced view to the world and not let the evangelical christian leaders and the leftist academics/marxists control the debate and continue to equate Hinduism with the caste system.
We, Hindu community, can expose them for their nefarious designs, their cabal with Dalit organizations to promote their evangelical programs, … and present what is a fair appraisal of the state of affairs and the progress made in the last 60 years, as well as what challenges lie ahead and how Hindu community and India Gov is dealing with those challenges.
And what needs to be done more.
As with the ‘take back yoga’/'yogathons’, corrections to school textbooks about descriptions of Hinduism and India by several Hindu organizations, so also with the caste system, Hindus must control the debate.
We should not let others control the debate on any issue that directly affects us, the Hindu community
here in USA and/or in India.
This report has been in the making for 5 years – its not a spur of the moment decision.
I was pleased to see that the report takes a very judicious approach in explaining/making clear that caste is not an intrinsic/inherent part of Hinduism. But the solution to the problem lies in the tenets of Hinduism.
As you know Mihir and Suhag had been extremely supportive of the letter we had drafted for the Acharya Sabha.
Suhag had been very proactive with valuable suggestions/edits to our Draft. So, … as we took the new year resolution in January 2010 to take up this issue with the Acharya Sabha, I am glad to see that this report comes at an opportune time when we can re-affirm our resolution in Jan 2011 and redouble our efforts to see that this issue gets the support of our Dharmacharyas, Dharma gurus in India and that they are not misinformed, that this issue is not derailed by some leaders who have taken a stand to oppose this effort.
Therefore I would ask each one of us to speak out supporting this effort and inform members of our organizations through email lists and to contact our organization heads in India to provide them the right background, and intent behind these efforts and request them to openly support efforts to eradicate caste discrimination from the Indian soil.
Finally, as our own letter to the Acharya sabha stated: the Hindu society as a whole has suffered, and continues to suffer, grievous consequences as a result of the age old caste-based discriminatory practices…
Let us do our part to be a part of the solution.
As Mahatma Gandhi said: Be the change that you want to see in the world.
Let us be the change agents.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Best regards,
Ved
Ved P. Chaudhary, Ph.D.
General Secretary, Hindu Collective Initiative (HCI)
Director World Hindi Foundation (WHF)
Secretary, Asian American ’80-20 Initiative’ for Equality & Justice
President, Educators’ Society for the Heritage of India (ESHI) www.ESHIusa.org
___”You must be the change you wish to see in the world” — Mahatma Gandhi
***Save a Tree… Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Ved Chaudhary <ved.chaudharyDOTgmail.com>wrote:
Namaskar.
I emailed to Shri Venkatnarayan the letter (see attached PDF file) addressed to Pujya Swami Dayananda ji with ten signatories and have received the acknowledgement from Sri Venkatnarayan along with his suggestions for those of us who want to take a more active role in eradicating caste based discrimination at the grass roots level in India.
Kindly take a note to his action oriented suggestion below.
If there is interest in further exploring his suggestion,
I can set up a conf call with him some time next week
after he returns from Rishikesh.
Regards,
Ved
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: R. Venkatanarayanan <daps2322DOTgmail.com>
Date: Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 5:06 AM
Subject: Re: letter to Pujya Swami Dayananda, convener Acharya Sabha
To: Ved Chaudhary <ved.chaudharyDOTgmail.com>
Dear Dr. Ved,
Namaste!
I shall take necessary action and shall keep you informed of developments.
Engagement by eminent persons from overseas, concerned with issues of importance to Hindu society, will strengthen our hands here and will also bring fresh perspectives in our thinking and action. I personally, therefore, welcome the present effort.
If I may offer another suggestion for consideration by you and others
who have signed the letter and also their active associates:
The organizations in India working hard and for a good deal of time for Hindu causes are mostly huge in size, monolithic and too tightly controlled from the top. The flexibility required is not always forthcoming. Besides there are organizational limitations in a larger perspective. For this reason I consider that it is necessary for a number of small organizations–legal bodies, like Trusts and Societies–in different States. Their core agenda must be Hindu-centric. They should deal with economic empowerment, strengthening Hindu self esteem and at the same time work to eradicate out-dated or harmful social practices in communities, including temple entry and temple-support culture.
I have personal experience of such a model working well in Tamil Nadu with small budgets but a handful of dedicated grass roots personnel. Similar entities are needed in many other States. They will not be duplicating the work of large organizations but will fill gaps as it were among them. Dedicated NRIs from different States could identify some activist in the State with which he/she is familiar, and work through him/her. Initially some seed funds will be required by such small legal entities but they must be made to understand that sooner than later they should raise domestic funds for their activities.
I am willing to assist one or more of you in designing and creating such small entities.
I feel that without such grass roots work the concerns we have been discussing, will remain at the stage of “awareness-raising” and will not move over to concrete action in the field. Without grass roots action social practices can not be changed easily. Social changes can be brought about relatively easily in young traditions but not in traditions like ours which are old to the extent of being even fossilized in parts.
In the matter of ‘Caste’, an added dimension is that there are numerous instances in our country of ‘Caste’ playing a salutary role in mobilization, monetary and community support at times of dire need, motivation to advance in life, projecting successful economic activity models and so on. In this respect ‘Caste’ operates as one of multiple identities of which all of us are aware. Recognizing this is not being defensive about ‘Caste’ but it is understanding why despite all these laws and the numerous instances of oppressive behaviour in the name of ‘Caste’, it is still a strong reality in the country.
RVN
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 4:30 AM, Ved Chaudhary<ved.chaudharyDOTgmail.com> wrote:
Dear Shri Venkatnarayan ji,
Namaskar.
We thank you for your advice and guidance in this matter.
Following our conference call, Sudhir ji revised the draft letter
and we have had it reviewed by 10 leaders of Hindu Collective Initiative
who have given their consent to write their names as signatories.
Sudhir ji is traveling, so I am forwarding the letter to you in a PDF file as attached.
As discussed, we’ll very much appreciate it if you would kindly present it
to Pujya swami ji when you meet him at Rishikesh next week.
Best regards,
Ved .
Ved P. Chaudhary, Ph.D.
General Secretary, Hindu Collective Initiative (HCI) www.hcina.org
President, Educators Society for the Heritage of India (ESHI) www.ESHIusa.org
Former Member, Board of Trustees, Rutgers University, N.J.
Assistant Commissioner, Dept. of Environmental Protection, NJ
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 6:57 AM
Subject: Re: Direct Communications
To: Suhag Shukla <suhagDOThafsite.org>
Cc: Aseem Shukla <aseemDOThafsite.org>, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, R Sekhon <ranbir.sekhonDOTtalktalk.net>, Arjun <arjunshaktiDOTyahoo.co.uk>, Sheetal Shah <sheetalDOThafsite.org>, “Dr. Basant K Tariyal” <btariyalDOTgmail.com>, Mahesh Mehta <mahesh.mehtaDOTgmail.com>, Gaurang Vaishnavji <vicharakDOTgmail.com>, Jyotish Parekh <jparekhDOTsbcglobal.net>, abhaya asthana <abhayajiDOTgmail.com>, Satya D <hitaya123DOTgmail.com>, katarianDOTaol.com, Yelloji Mirajkar <mirajkaryDOTyahoo.com>, Ved Prakash Nanda <nandasDOTearthlink.net>, Deen Chandora <deenbcDOTyahoo.com>, Kunal Vyas <kvys84DOTgmail.com>, Utsav Chakrabarti <utsavcDOTgmail.com>, Manohar Shindeji <manoharshindeDOTyahoo.com>, “Dr. Adapa Prasad” <adapa_pDOThotmail.com>, Nikunj Trivedi <nikudiDOTyahoo.com>, Sant Gupta <santguptavaDOTgmail.com>, “Dr. Satish Misra” <satish_misraDOThotmail.com>, Anuja Prashar <anujaprshrDOTyahoo.com>, mihirDOThafsite.org
Suhag ji, saadar pranaam.
I am troubled by the reference to the ‘other party’. HAF and most vocal individuals of Hindu samajam constitute one party, endeavoring to protect dharma, the extraordinary treasure handed down to us by our pitr-s. That dharma alone shall protect all of us.
The ‘other party’ we should all be concerned about is the missionary-mullah-marxist nexus mafia constantly indulging in hindu-bashing misrepresenting ‘caste’ as a ‘human rights’ violation which it is NOT. This misrepresentation occurs to defame the hindu. Jaati is NOT a human rights problem. It is India’s gift to the civilized world on how to build an extended family and a social security system which does not burden the state but is enabled suo moto, by the samajam itself.
Methinks, one way to debate and gain a consensus is as follows:
1. Take the draft report of HAF out of the web and put it on a secure forum for detailed deliberations with all Hindus. This is important to avoid the ‘other party’ to misuse the early-bird versions of HAF referring to ‘caste-discrimination’ again and again.
2. Provide links to counter ‘caste-bashing’: e.g. the reports of Dharam Pal, California Text Books case, Fairfax county texbooks case, a whole host of reports concerning the amelioration of the ‘scheduled castes/tribes’, etc. in India in the post-colonial period by governmental and non-governmental agencies. This is’ to let the ‘other party’ know that social organization in India is well taken care of by the Indian state and society.
3. Don’t rush to call is a ‘human rights’ problem. Economic discriminations exist in every society on the globe and to call ‘caste’ as a ‘human rights’ problem is a mistake. Let this point of view be allowed to be debated by the community which supports HAF.
Simply put, first understand the ground reality, get immersed, before assuming the role of an advocate to represent Hindu case to mischief-makers, be they in US Congress, be they in Colorado.
It is for HAF to consider how the debate should continue beyond private conference calls, to arrive at a consensus.
dhanyavaadaah.
kalyanaraman
On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 1:43 AM, Suhag Shukla <suhagDOThafsite.org> wrote:
Dear Friends and Supporters in the Hindu community,
Tuesday evening, the following had a conference call:
Rajiv Malhotra of Infinity Foundation
Suhag Shukla, Esq., of the Hindu American Foundation
Mihir Meghani, M.D., of the Hindu American Foundation
We discussed some of the on going issues that have come to light. We are all sorry that the discussion took a personal turn and acknowledge that the turn is neither productive nor becoming of individuals and organizations committed to the same end goal — the preservation and promotion of Hindu traditions.
We have re-committed to taking problems directly to the other party – that means calling the other party directly or emailing them directly rather then posting ad hominem attacks in various fora. This does not prevent either side from making a critique of the other’s work in a professional and constructive manner. This will also require that, from time to time, we will have to simply agree to disagree.
If any of you have comments for either Rajiv or HAF, please send them directly to the proper person.
Sincerely,
Rajiv Malhotra - rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com
Hindu American Foundation Board of Directors, staff and Executive Council
BOD: mihirDOThafsite.org/aseemDOThafsite.org/swamiDOThafsite.org/nikhilDOThafsite.org
Staff: suhagDOThafsite.org/sheetalDOThafsite.org/jayDOThafsite.org
–
Suhag A. Shukla, Esq.
Managing Director and Legal Counsel
Hindu American Foundation
5268G Nicholson Lane #164
Kensington, MD 20895
651.248.3883
Do Your Part. Become a member today!
Visit HAF on Facebook and LinkedIn
Follow HAF on Twitter - http://twitter.com/HinduAmerican
Please note that Suhag Shukla is admitted to practice law in the states of Florida and Minnesota only. Any communication between you and Suhag Shukla shall not be construed or regarded as legal advice and shall not be reflective of an attorney-client relationship unless an attorney-client relationship has been previously established pursuant to a written representation agreement signed by you and Suhag Shukla. This e-mail message may contain privileged, confidential and/or proprietary information intended only for the person(s) named. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy this message, and any attachments, and notify the sender by return e-mail. If you are not the intended recipient(s), or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient(s), you are hereby notified that any dissemination, disclosure or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. Please advise the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy.
Ram Sidhaye’s counter to HAF Report on Caste
Dec. 17, 2010
Friends:
I have carefully read HAF’s recent report on CASTE.
For me, there is no need to do chapter by chapter, page by page analysis because it has been done by few and shared with HAF.
Here are my general observations and comments for HAF to take into account for future course of actions:
1) It is my understanding that HAF is an advocacy organization for Hindus in America. If that is correct then what was the necessity to write report on Caste discrimination in India and make it part of Human rights issue. Govt. of India, spiritual leaders and other social entities are taking necessary actions thru legal processes and social programs to address the issue in India.
2) Why HAF report is silent on discrimination by Govt. of India taking control over Hindu temples only? Other religions are free to practice and maintain their worship places. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right which encompasses maintaining worship workplaces too. ……………
3) Here are few suggestions for HAF to stay actively involved in:
a) textbooks issue(s) in USA,
b) challenging books distorting Sanatan/Hindu Dharma,
c) making sure that chair at University of Chicago by Govt. of India is set up to promote Hindu/Sanatan Dharma properly and not used to distort Hindu Dharma and its history by people like Wendy Doniger. (By the way, GoI has taken steps to have a chair at Univ. of Chicago. No one know what will happen.)
d) challenge caste based organizations in USA:-
- There are “Caste” based organizations in USA and they hold conventions in USA
- Brahman Samaj of North America had their annual convention in NJ in the 1st week of December, 2010
-
e)
4) HAF report gives an impression the support of several prominent personalities for its report. If HAF had letters from senior leaders of any organizations in USA and India then I am sure they would have made that as part of the report. Since HAF has not included such letters is an indication that such support from spiritual, social or community leaders does not exist for this report.
5) What is the intent of HAF for bringing out this issue in American media (Washington Post, Huffington Post, and Hinduism Today) before giving opportunity for Hindu community in USA to review its report?
6) I requested couple of my long time American (White and Black) friends to read the report and comments posted by readers on Washington Post and Huffington Post. They are amused with the discussion on at Washington Post and Huffington Post. They are surprised to see that Hindu organization washing dirty laundry in public. They also wonder whether Hindus in USA still practice “Caste” discrimination among Hindus in USA. Now, Hindus in USA may have to deal with such perception among some Americans. In last 42 years, I have never heard any American wondering if Hindus practice “Caste” discrimination in USA. For Americans, it is like Muslims practicing Sharia law in USA among Muslim community.
7) Scholars like Prof. Subash Kak, Ambassador (retired) O. P. Gupta and several others have written in the past that Caste is not part of Hinduism. Even Ashok Chowgule of VHP/RSS has also commented on this issue. I will be surprised if HAF does not have vast amount of material written in last 10+ years on Caste, Sati, Dowry and other social ills in India. HAF is last in line to create awareness of social ills in India.
8) Did HAF do anything when American visa was denied to Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi? If not, why not? Was that not advocacy for Hindus in USA?
9) Why HAF wants to use narratives of the “Colonial” vocabulary of “Caste” to define Hinduism?
10) Why HAF wants to go to US congress with this report? What they want US congress to do?
11) Is HAF planning to go to UN with this report? What HAF expects from UN?
12) Every society has issues and they try to solve and to not publicize it saying, “Look at the issues we have”.
13) I come from a very small village in Maharashtra. Majority in the village were non-Brahmins, whatever Brahmin means. Absolutely no one in the village knew Sanskrut or any Hindu Scriptures. We had several temples and owned (mostly by non-Brahmins) and each temple had a pujari. Most pujaries were not Brahmins. They learned basics from learned Pujari and could perform puja including reciting what other Brahmin pujari taught them and you could not tell that pujari was not Brahmin. All pujaries performed puja for anyone in the village for a fee. More the fee, longer the puja. No one understood what pujari was saying but there was the peaceful atmosphere in temple or house and people enjoyed it. I am narrating this to make a point that knowledge of Sanskrut was not necessary for people in village to understand Hindu religion or to be successful in life. In last 40+ years, several of my friends (all non Brahmins) have been very successful. In fact, one of them has more than 50 acres developed (not a commercial facility but just garden and fruit trees) which is out of this world. He organized 1 week Sat-Sang of Mr. Oza. Organizer provided with transportation and food for villagers coming from neighboring villages. So, the argument that lack of knowledge of Sanskrut held back so called lower caste is not a valid argument.
14) All Smruties including Manu Smruti provide a snap shot of governing principles at that point in time for society to function in harmony. So, Smruties have changed with time and hence cannot always be used as calibrated yard stick standard to define Hinduism at present time.
15) If ST/SC, .. are discriminated because of their “Caste”, then can HAF explain why converted people in India are encouraged by Christians, Muslims, .. to keep their Caste?
16) HAF analysis does not write much about “Reverse Caste” discrimination in India. This has been going on since independence.
17) If HAF is so concern about the well being of India then why HAF does not write about serious corruption taking place in every walk of life in India hampering growth. If HAF says, Indians have to solve that problem then same is true that discrimination under any banner in India will be solved/addressed by Indians.
18) In last 20+ years, Indians have become very proud of their heritage and economic progress and they absolutely hate some NRIs advising them how to solve the problems in India. They are polite and hence they do not insult you and tell you to get lost. After several years in USA, I have stayed in India for 5 years, and I have heard them what they say after NRI has left or off the phone.
19) Before publishing the report and launching media BLITZ, did HAF ever think of impact of its report on Hindu image in USA?
20) Has HAF down loaded all the comments by readers on its Washington Post and Huffington Post BLOG? If not, why not? If yes, will HAF load all those comments on its WEB site?
21) Will HAF load all the letters/comments it has received, via e-mail, on its WEB site?
22) I requested 2 Hindu Americans (born and raised in USA), who are in demanding professions, to read this report and their reaction is why fight battles in India. We, Hindu Americans, want our parents and grandparents take battles for Hindus in USA. That says it all.
23) ……..
A personal note:
I am not associated with any organization. For those who may not my participation for Hindu causes in USA,
as a core member of Atlanta team I have been involved in the past in challenging book on “Ganesha” by Porf. Courtright and launching the internet campaign to stop NBCC award to Prof. Wendy Doniger for her latest
book on Hinduism and its history. Both these campaigns were successful.
Hope, HAF takes these comments with open mind.
Sincerely,
Ram Sidhaye
Hari OM!
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 2:26 PM
Subject: Caste matters again
To:
I am afraid the highly damaging HAF report on Caste must be repudiated
decisively. The personal interests of the individuals in the HAF who
sponsored it are of little moment given the damage the report itself
has done to Hindus and the negative subsequent fall out that has
resulted. I do not know any of these people personally though I have
had cordial exchanges with some of them indeed helped HAF reformulate
their first human rights report. But I now believe that the three
individuals directly involved in writing, sponsoring and defending the
report should offer to resign. Whether that will suffice to restore
the credibility of HAF remains to be seen.
Their resignations are the only way in which this damaging report can
be de-legitimised. No Hindu should presume to place their private
concerns above the vital interests of the Hindu community. Such
voluntary withdrawals are the form a decent and civilised apology
would take in an organisation in which a serious breach of performance
and trust have occurred.
I also do not think it appropriate at this juncture to engage in any
further cogitation over Caste matters. We Hindus are facing a
veritable military-style onslaught, with the Catholic heir apparent to
virtual kingship in India suggesting that Hindus are a greater danger
to their own motherland than Islamic terrorists emanating from
Pakistan and his factotum, Digvijay Singh, opining that Hindus may
have killed a senior ATS Mumbai police officer. The UK legislation on
Caste discrimination is also a harbinger of the shape of things to
come and similar measures at the the UNHCR will represent a
devastating blow to Hindus. The attack on alleged Caste discrimination
is merely a coda for delegitimising the Hindu faith since Christians
have always insisted that Hinduism is synonymous with Caste, the
desperate trap into which the HAF has so foolishly and arrogantly
allowed itself to fall
May I enter a further humble plea to India’s Acharyas and Pujya Swamis
to reflect very carefully when they consider approving such reports.
If they do not have the time and energy to review such reports may I
request that others be appointed to do so on their behalf. I remain
available to undertake such a task without presuming to prejudge such
reports in their place. I am sure others of greater competence would
also put themselves forward to perform such a duty.
Namset,
Dr. Gautam Sen
—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Shree Vinekar <shreevinekarDOTyahoo.com>
To: Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>; seshachalam Dutta <seshachalamdDOTsbcglobal.net>; Nagendra Rao <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>; guru ganesan <docganeshDOTaol.com>; navaratna rajaramnavaratna <rajaramnavaratnaDOTgmail.com>; Sreenivas Kalyanraman <kalyan97DOTyahoo.com>; pvshastriDOTaol.com; Koenraad Elst <koenraadelstDOThotmail.com>; Shrinivas Tilak <shrinivas.tilakDOTgmail.com>; Vijaya Rajiva <vrajivaDOTyahoo.com>; Desh Kapoor <desh.kapoorDOTgmail.com>; Ram Madhav <rammadhavDOTgmail.com>; Ramesh Waghmare <ramesh.waghmareDOTsympatico.ca>
Cc: mihirDOThafsite.org; aseemDOThafsite.org; NikhilDOThafsite.org; pawanDOThafsite.org; RameshDOThafsite.org; suhagDOThafsite.org; swamiDOThafsite.org; abhayajiDOTgmail.com; hitaya123DOTgmail.com; indicyogaDOTgmail.com; jparekhDOTsbcglobal.net; kamleshkDOTcox.net; katarianDOTaol.com; mahesh.mehtaDOTgmail.com; manoharshindeDOTyahoo.com; mookerjeeDOTgmail.com; nandasDOTearthlink.net; nit_andDOTyahoo.com; rahul26sharmaDOTgmail.com; rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com; rakbahDOTgmail.com; rakesh901omDOTgmail.com; swaminathan.venkataramanDOTgmail.com; vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com; rahul26deshsharmaDOTgmail.com
Sent: Sun, December 19, 2010 10:05:08 AM
Subject: Re: From Rajiv to few – 1217 – Fwd: Preliminary analysis of HAF report
| Dear Sidhaye ji: Namaskar
Thanks. I have read your heartfelt comments with great interest, as also Rakesh Bahadur’s excellent critical comments.
Before I make even any preliminary comments, there are more questions that come to my mind as to how I can understand the psychology, politics, goals, objectives, and methodology of HAF as well as what is being proposed by HAF to be put in practice and where, etc. What is the strategy of HAF and where does it want to go and accomplish what other than throw aspersions on India and Hindus? Is the report a criticism of UPA Government policy? If so, it should be so stated. The HAF report which I have not read as yet appears to me to be a reflection of a few youngsters with identity confusion and crisis giving them the benefit of the doubt. I am not able to determine if they are the first generation immigrants or second generation ABCDs. They look to me as if they are naive imitators or copy-cats, if you may say, of the American “political” ways which they have not yet mastered and comprehended but have had the good fortune to step into. The report will sound very good to Western readers who know nothing about India and Hindus. I wonder if these folks had a meeting(s) with Wendy and her children or some similar people (busybodies) before writing this report.
The most outrageous issue about this report is for HAF to slide into a bizarre cacophonous note of “Human Rights” which has nothing to do with how the Hindu society was organized and is still organized. These two issues are unrelated as far as I can tell with my limited exposure to India in my cognizant years. I am copying this to some who have more insight into Human Rights politics than I will ever have. It is a shame that “Democracy” and “Human Rights” have become buzz words to interfere with others with whom the busybodies have no business interfering with. It was good to have a visitor to Humanyun’s Makabara but that should not follow with intrusion into internal matters of India, and HAF should watch out for not becoming a stooge for such people more than even become part of “Human Rights Watch.” These political entities have no place in bringing about social reforms among Hindus. HAF needs to give up “dasyu” vritti in relating with the larger society in the US and should not turn to “higher political powers” like the ”Congress or UN” or Vatican to solve any internal problems of India especially after learning a bad lesson from Jawaharlal Nehru who felt justified in turning to the UN for Kashmir issue in 1948. It will soon be 2011, BEWARE!!!!! HAF may be paving the way for prolonged interference and intrusion into internal matters of India. I did not know that HAF was formed to reform the Hindus in India or all over the world with political activism. Or, was it? Any foreign hand or collusion with any non Indian or non-Hindu organization or power in this matter should be a serious concern. That is, of course, another question that comes to my mind. Until HAF comes clean as to what is it is doing and why it will be difficult to make even preliminary comments.
HAF should have consulted some African American scholars, and others who have been the victims of Human Rights violations in this country before mixing up the two which is a very bad rap for India and Hindus. What is not in keeping with the role of HAF (which is presumably advocacy for the Hindus or American Hindus) is a role of defaming agency for Hindus in America. Overall, I will still withold my final comments until I read the report.
Thanks for sharing. Shree Vinekar — On Sat, 12/18/10, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com> wrote: Friends;
FYI only.
Ram
———- Forwarded message ———-
Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com> Ram’s critique should be added to your online collection. It is straight from the heart with no agenda. ———- Forwarded message ———- Friends: I have carefully read HAF’s recent report on CASTE. (For your convenience, I have attached my comments in MS WORD document) For me, there is no need to do chapter by chapter, page by page analysis because it has been done by few and shared with HAF. Here are my general observations and comments for HAF to take into account for future course of actions: 1) It is my understanding that HAF is an advocacy organization for Hindus in America. If that is correct then what was the necessity to write report on Caste discrimination in India and make it part of Human rights issue. Govt. of India, spiritual leaders and other social entities are taking necessary actions thru legal processes and social programs to address the issue in India. 2) Why HAF report is silent on discrimination by Govt. of India taking control over Hindu temples only? Other religions are free to practice and maintain their worship places. Freedom of religion is a fundamental right which encompasses maintaining worship workplaces too. …………… 3) Here are few suggestions for HAF to stay actively involved in: a) textbooks issue(s) in USA, b) challenging books distorting Sanatan/Hindu Dharma, c) making sure that chair at University of Chicago by Govt. of India is set up to promote Hindu/Sanatan Dharma properly and not used to distort Hindu Dharma and its history by people like Wendy Doniger. (By the way, GoI has taken steps to have a chair at Univ. of Chicago. No one know what will happen.) d) challenge caste based organizations in USA:- - There are “Caste” based organizations in USA and they hold conventions in USA - Brahman Samaj of North America had their annual convention in NJ in the 1st week of December, 2010 - e) 4) HAF report gives an impression the support of several prominent personalities for its report. If HAF had letters from senior leaders of any organizations in USA and India then I am sure they would have made that as part of the report. Since HAF has not included such letters is an indication that such support from spiritual, social or community leaders does not exist for this report. 5) What is the intent of HAF for bringing out this issue in American media (Washington Post, Huffington Post, and Hinduism Today) before giving opportunity for Hindu community in USA to review its report? 6) I requested couple of my long time American (White and Black) friends to read the report and comments posted by readers on Washington Post and Huffington Post. They are amused with the discussion on at Washington Post and Huffington Post. They are surprised to see that Hindu organization washing dirty laundry in public. They also wonder whether Hindus in USA still practice “Caste” discrimination among Hindus in USA. Now, Hindus in USA may have to deal with such perception among some Americans. In last 42 years, I have never heard any American wondering if Hindus practice “Caste” discrimination in USA. For Americans, it is like Muslims practicing Sharia law in USA among Muslim community. 7) Scholars like Prof. Subash Kak, Ambassador (retired) O. P. Gupta and several others have written in the past that Caste is not part of Hinduism. Even Ashok Chowgule of VHP/RSS has also commented on this issue. I will be surprised if HAF does not have vast amount of material written in last 10+ years on Caste, Sati, Dowry and other social ills in India. HAF is last in line to create awareness of social ills in India. 8) Did HAF do anything when American visa was denied to Chief Minister Mr. Narendra Modi? If not, why not? Was that not advocacy for Hindus in USA? 9) Why HAF wants to use narratives of the “Colonial” vocabulary of “Caste” to define Hinduism? 10) Why HAF wants to go to US congress with this report? What they want US congress to do? 11) Is HAF planning to go to UN with this report? What HAF expects from UN? 12) Every society has issues and they try to solve and to not publicize it saying, “Look at the issues we have”. 13) I come from a very small village in Maharashtra. Majority in the village were non-Brahmins, whatever Brahmin means. Absolutely no one in the village knew Sanskrut or any Hindu Scriptures. We had several temples and owned (mostly by non-Brahmins) and each temple had a pujari. Most pujaries were not Brahmins. They learned basics from learned Pujari and could perform puja including reciting what other Brahmin pujari taught them and you could not tell that pujari was not Brahmin. All pujaries performed puja for anyone in the village for a fee. More the fee, longer the puja. No one understood what pujari was saying but there was the peaceful atmosphere in temple or house and people enjoyed it. I am narrating this to make a point that knowledge of Sanskrut was not necessary for people in village to understand Hindu religion or to be successful in life. In last 40+ years, several of my friends (all non Brahmins) have been very successful. In fact, one of them has more than 50 acres developed (not a commercial facility but just garden and fruit trees) which is out of this world. He organized 1 week Sat-Sang of Mr. Oza. Organizer provided with transportation and food for villagers coming from neighboring villages. So, the argument that lack of knowledge of Sanskrut held back so called lower caste is not a valid argument. 14) All Smruties including Manu Smruti provide a snap shot of governing principles at that point in time for society to function in harmony. So, Smruties have changed with time and hence cannot always be used as calibrated yard stick standard to define Hinduism at present time. 15) If ST/SC, .. are discriminated because of their “Caste”, then can HAF explain why converted people in India are encouraged by Christians, Muslims, .. to keep their Caste? 16) HAF analysis does not write much about “Reverse Caste” discrimination in India. This has been going on since independence. 17) If HAF is so concern about the well being of India then why HAF does not write about serious corruption taking place in every walk of life in India hampering growth. If HAF says, Indians have to solve that problem then same is true that discrimination under any banner in India will be solved/addressed by Indians. 18) In last 20+ years, Indians have become very proud of their heritage and economic progress and they absolutely hate some NRIs advising them how to solve the problems in India. They are polite and hence they do not insult you and tell you to get lost. After several years in USA, I have stayed in India for 5 years, and I have heard them what they say after NRI has left or off the phone. 19) Before publishing the report and launching media BLITZ, did HAF ever think of impact of its report on Hindu image in USA? 20) Has HAF down loaded all the comments by readers on its Washington Post and Huffington Post BLOG? If not, why not? If yes, will HAF load all those comments on its WEB site? 21) Will HAF load all the letters/comments it has received, via e-mail, on its WEB site? 22) I requested 2 Hindu Americans (born and raised in USA), who are in demanding professions, to read this report and their reaction is why fight battles in India. We, Hindu Americans, want our parents and grandparents take battles for Hindus in USA. That says it all. 23) ……..
A personal note: I am not associated with any organization. For those who may not my participation for Hindu causes in USA, as a core member of Atlanta team I have been involved in the past in challenging book on “Ganesha” by Porf. Courtright and launching the internet campaign to stop NBCC award to Prof. Wendy Doniger for her latest book on Hinduism and its history. Both these campaigns were successful.
Hope, HAF takes these comments with open mind.
Sincerely,
Ram Sidhaye Hari OM!
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM, rakesh bahadur <rakbahDOTgmail.com> wrote: Namaskar
Please find attached my comments on the HAF report “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste. I have read the complete report very carefully before preparing this preliminary analysis.
The main reason for HAF report analysis and this email is that the content regarding caste in this report is no different than it is in any social studies text book used in grade schools. And that is an issue. HAF has always supported me for getting corrections to the textbooks and standards of learning in Virginia.
This analysis is not exhaustive or complete. It is mainly to elicit from HAF if they plan to revise the report and also to ask the following:
i) Was the theme of this report presented/discussed in any forum?”
Thanks Rakesh Bahadur 703 855 5982
19 Dec. 2010 Critique of Hindu American Foundation’s Report on ‘Caste’ by Rajiv Malhotra Summary The critique below is in response to a report on “caste” recently issued by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste” (available at http://www.hafsite.org/sites/default/files/HAFN_Caste_Report_Dec10.pdf.) The purpose of my critique is two-fold: (1) to highlight substantive defects in the content of the report and (2) to demonstrate the severe damage that has already been inflicted or will likely result as a consequence of the distribution of the report. The report threatens to undo significant progress achieved by the Hindu community in correcting derogatory misrepresentations of Hinduism in the US educational system, provides valuable ammunition to anti-Hindu groups that will seriously undermine Hindu interests worldwide, and has serious geopolitical ramifications that threaten the interference of Western bodies into internal Indian/Hindu matters. Meanwhile, it does not achieve anything constructive to improve conditions on the ground in India in any sense. This is a grave and urgent crisis for the Hindu community and cannot be dismissed or glossed over as a philosophical or ideological disagreement. The issuance of this report has become a serious political vulnerability for the Hindu cause. This critique is written in the hopes that HAF will respond to the concerns documented herein in a constructive manner through collaboration with concerned members of the community. How the Controversy Started In early December, 2010, India-based Dr. Kalyanaraman, a well-published scholar on ancient Indian history, brought to my attention a widely hyped report on caste published by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF). HAF claimed that this report and its contents had received the support of many major spiritual and other leaders of Hindu Dharma, mostly based in India. The report’s purpose is to serve as a formal briefing document to the US Congress and other international legal bodies, positioning HAF as the apex body representing Hinduism and its “human rights violations.” It stated: “The key goals in this report are to … Highlight the fact that caste-based discrimination represents a failure of Hindu society…” (p.5) This immediately raised several alarming questions: Shouldn’t any such briefings be completely vetted by a wider constituency before being submitted? Who gave HAF the authority to speak for India? and Hinduism itself ? Is this an effort by Hinduphobics in Washington to get an outfit like HAF to “plead guilty” and surreptitiously incriminate all Hindus who are not even aware that they are being represented as such? HAF made tall and indeed false claims for itself, stating: “It is the first major study to be done by a Hindu organization to try to understand the problems of caste prejudice from within and attempt to take concrete steps to help ameliorate them.” (p. i) This ignores the fact that countless Hindu bodies in India have written on caste over the years. The reason HAF gives for writing the report is that “there has not been a similar report from a credible Hindu institution in India.” (p.12) But who decides the credibility of Hindu institutions and is this not a completely disingenuous attempt at self-promotion? Another reason given by it is that “because Hinduism has no single central religious authority, individual sampradayas and Hindu organizations do not, and have never, spoken for Hindu society as a whole…” (p.12). HAF now claims the authority to speak for Hindu society as a whole! Dr. Kalyanaraman launched a massive email campaign against the report calling it rash, and “a rehash of the evangelical points of view.” He wrote that HAF is placating Washington based groups by “falling into the trap set by evangelical groups who are present also in US Congress.” This, wrote Kalyanaraman, opens the door further for the USA’s “interfering in the internal affairs of India … Caste is a stick to beat India with.” He completely questions and challenges HAF’s authority and competence to deal with this issue, and remarks that HAF has “overreached themselves.” In addition, he also criticizes their failure to differentiate between jati and caste. His critique of the report is available at: https://sites.google.com/site/hindunew/jaati. He has called for a complete withdrawal of the report, and HAF’s top executives have categorically dismissed that possibility. This episode triggered dozens of emails and conference calls within the US based Indian/Hindu community. While many privately complained about the report, they seemed unwilling to publicly question it because HAF claimed that it had been blessed by Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Given Swamiji’s stature, and out of respect for him, they felt compelled to keep their concerns private. So I investigated whether Swamiji had actually endorsed this report or not. I found from two separate sources, who are in regular contact with him, that he had never read the report or endorsed it. I pointed out to HAF that using Swamiji’s name without his permission was tantamount to a serious misrepresentation. After several attempts at intimidation and even hurling insults, one of the HAF top executives tried to back track and downplay this misrepresentation. He sent an email retracting the earlier HAF claim of support from Swamiji: “My humble apologies as well in implying that Swamiji reviewed our report.” This retraction opened the door for many more persons in the community to read the report and to draw their own conclusions. With the credibility of Swamiji no longer associated with the report, criticisms poured in from various places. HAF responded with a series of massive personal attacks against the critics, insulting them with name calling and making all kinds of irrelevant and false charges. An HAF supporter even resorted to the use of an anonymous id to send slanderous emails to their support base. Their tactics were a way to divert away from the issues of substance that were being raised, by attacking the personal credibility of the critics. It backfired miserably because it aroused even more anger against them. Unable to cite Swamiji’s name in their support, HAF then claimed that their report had been “picked up” by the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, when in fact , these were blogs authored by HAF’s founders themselves at the media sites, and not carried or cited by independent journalists writing for those media as HAF tried to imply. In this war of words, HAF repeated its claims of being the pre-eminent Hindu body, of its support from many large donors who had contributed millions, and of its “brand value.” In this defensiveness, valuable time was lost that should have been used to deal with the issues of substance concerning the report itself. In the days that ensued, a sharply worded critique was received from Rakesh Bahadur, who has single-handedly fought and negotiated with the Virginia education authorities for two years, in order to correct the Social Studies Standards of Learning (SOLs) and Curriculum Frameworks (CFs). He remarked: “Now HAF issued a report which describes caste in the same way as it occurs in the textbooks and standards.” In other words, HAF is boosting the agenda of the Hinduphobics! Citing examples of how the opponents like to selectively quote Indian and/or Hindu sources to suit their designs, Bahadur remarked that “our opponents just need to refer a few sentences from the report” to neutralize all the efforts by him and his supporters. He developed a table of key mistakes in HAF’s report, pointing out that “It is very dangerous to use Varna and Caste interchangeably,” and that “HAF report does not give specific references from the scriptures mentioned, but instead gives some general statistics which do not prove anything.” Bahadur concluded that “This report represents only the ‘HAF perspective’ and is not the ‘Hindu perspective’. HAF does not speak for all 1 Billion Hindus.” Gautam Sen, a retired academic in the UK and a scholar of geopolitical issues concerning Indian civilization, was also incensed. His scathing criticism focused on how such a report feeds precisely those forces in UK and elsewhere that want to undermine Hindu dharma. He explained that there was considerable momentum built in the UK government and parliament to issue declarations against Hinduism which would have widespread legal repercussions. The HAF report played into the hands of such campaigns to prosecute Hinduism in UK, EU and UN legal frameworks. He felt that HAF had no business meddling in geopolitical matters that were over their heads and that could have severe consequences for millions of Indians, and became the first person to publicly call for the resignation of the HAF leaders: “I am afraid the highly damaging HAF report on Caste must be repudiated decisively. The personal interests of the individuals in the HAF who sponsored it are of little moment given the damage the report itself has done to Hindus and the negative subsequent fall out that has resulted. I do not know any of these people personally though I have had cordial exchanges with some of them, indeed helped HAF reformulate their first human rights report. But I now believe that the three individuals directly involved in writing, sponsoring and defending the report should offer to resign. Whether that will suffice to restore the credibility of HAF remains to be seen. This is very bad news because they will first condemn caste here in the UK and then it will be ratified at the UNHCR and caste will conflated with Hinduism, which it has always been. Some discreet high level action is urgently required from India to express strong disapproval.” Once the floodgates opened, numerous other voices came out to criticize HAF for what is now being viewed as an irresponsible and dangerous initiative. I will now give my own comments on this report. I have no doubt that we, like all religions, must always be aware of our internal problems and aggressively solve them for our own good. My main point will concern the following: which side in this kurukshetra of civilizations should control the discourse on Hindu matters – the Hindus themselves or outside government bodies in places like Washington? ‘Caste’ is Now a Dangerous Geopolitical Game The report writers appear to be naïve and simply clueless about the report’s realpolitik impact for India in international affairs. It would be entirely different had the report been circulated for discussion within Hindu spiritual communities seeking to further root out adharma in their societies. All religions are obliged to self-correct, root out the injustices in their midst and remain perpetually vigilant and engaged in this effort. Indeed Hindu dharma calls upon us to do this. But this report has been written to be explicitly targeted for distribution in places like the United States Congress. Leave aside for a moment, the issue of how HAF believes that they even have the authority, mandate and consensus to represent India to American lawmakers. Hindu Americans, a minority immigrant community, are hardly the perpetrators of caste discrimination in the US, and they seek their advocacy groups to help ameliorate the racial and religious prejudice targeted at them in the media, schools and higher education. HAF seems to have shifted its focus from its intended US based constituency to India’s domestic affairs! This is the context in which the report has to be evaluated. The defenders of HAF’s report focus on how and why caste related problems must be addressed. Indeed, they must be and are being addressed, by political parties in India and by thousands of Hindu spiritual leaders, NGOs, activists and engaged citizens. Unfortunately, HAF seems unconcerned about the implications of using Western rather than Indian political and legal forums. I have raised these concerns: Are the legal mechanisms of USA, UK, EU and UN the right forums that ought to be brought to bear upon India’s issues? What has been the Western governments’ track record over the past several centuries of bringing such “human rights” to others around the world? Did India not learn its lessons from the colonial experience in this regard? Such legal bodies are not forums for metaphysical debates. They are mechanisms for international interventions. Given that HAF declares caste in India to be “a human rights violation,” the consequences under International Human Rights Law (to which India is a signatory) are unavoidable. Naively, the report later on (page 56) tries to cover HAF with a contradictory statement that “caste-based discrimination in India should be treated purely as an internal matter of a sovereign state and that India’s caste problem should not become internationalized by NGOs who want secondary gain.” Imagine that a family member goes public to apologize for child abuses or other criminal activity occurring within his home, and later in his written confession says, “but we don’t want the police to interfere with our family’s internal affairs.” Does HAF assume that such a confession will not bring prosecution! On what grounds, with what expertise, with who’s counsel and by what right has the HAF “pleaded guilty” and incriminated us all, not just psychologically but also potentially politically and financially? Similarly, after supplying detailed ammunition on caste abuses occurring today, the report contradicts itself by asserting that caste is not to be equated with apartheid or race (page 45-6). This assertion cannot be a simple one-liner that will be taken at face value. It would need a comprehensive argument on why caste as described so graphically by the report is not apartheid or race. The report has 20 pages (pp. 58-77) of several numbered lists with highly sensational and graphic stories of caste based atrocities, such as rapes, sex trade, denial of access to temples and water, common food areas, inter-caste marriages, economic exploitation, manual scavenging, bonded labor, violence, government bias, police custody, etc. How does HAF plan to prevent the Christian missionaries (that have supplied most of these examples in the first place) from equating it with apartheid and race? The report cites that there were 33,615 human rights violations in 2008 in India, without having done any due diligence on the reliability of such precise cases. Anyone dealing with such statistics in India knows that there are numerous rival statistical claims on whether such data is valid. In India it is very easy and common to file a “report”; hence, to legitimize such statistics that are mere “claims” simply plays into the hands of Hinduphobics who have a machine to gather such data on Hinduism and distribute it globally. HAF’s 20 pages of random anecdotal incidents that are largely a rehashing of secondary data and hearsay has opened a mine field. It will serve as great fodder for Hinduphobic textbooks and media, precisely the kind that HAF has in the past tried to fight against. HAF appears to be unaware of the extensive discourse developed by Hinduphobic groups in international fora to mobilize foreign intervention against India, using precisely the type of data that HAF is now providing. For instance, there are specific petitions and proposals that foreign investments should be linked to employing certain minority groups in India, with Christian and leftist groups being trained over the past several years to take advantage of this, and thereby fill their own pockets. Undoubtedly, such interventions are a way to put Indian Christians in the driver’s seat, because they hold the key positions of control in such mechanisms, and they have the international experience and momentum to carry this out. Just as President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiatives were criticized as a way to financially empower USA’s Christian organizations in the name of social service, so also this international lobbying in recent years is intended to channel international aid and corporate investments towards Christian organizations in India. The report mentions Dalit Freedom Network (DFN) but is too soft on them, and it could be used by them to boost their credibility. HAF must point out DFN’s treacherous role in promoting the Afro-Dalit identity combined with “empowerment training” (read: “activism and militancy”). Years ago, I debated Vijay Prashad, the US based communist, on his role in this movement. DFN’s political power base emerges from the Washington connections of its lawyer, Melody Divine, who works in the office of US Congressman, Trent Franks of Arizona. DFN is not a Dalit group as assumed in Indian circles. It is run by white right-wing Christians out of a church in Colorado. The Articles of Incorporation filed at the Secretary of State’s office says that it is a religious group. Joseph D’Souza, its poster boy, is a radical Christian featured on the website of Pat Robertson’s 700 Club, a group for fundamentalist Christians. Kancha Ilaiah, another poster boy of DFN, is not a Dalit. He has claimed that Hinduism is a “spiritual fascist cult.” (http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/jan/17inter.htm) Clearly, it is a hate group and a fake Dalit group. I wish HAF had read the recent book, titled, “Post-Hindu India,” by Kancha Ilaiah, in order to understand the grand designs being sponsored by these global players. Without pointing any of this out, HAF does acknowledge that DFN is missionary sponsored, but fails to distinguish between missionary motivated pseudo-Dalit organizations and genuine dharmic Dalit emancipation movements in the following vague statement: “We acknowledge that Hindu society has historically failed the SCs, and the Dalit movement is merely reaching out for allies in its quest for emancipation.” (p.43) HAF should have studied scholars like Dharmapal, rather than conflating organizations like DFN with genuine social emancipation movements. Furthermore, to state in a blanket way that the “Hindu society has historically failed Dalits” is a statement borne out of historical illiteracy. In fact, Hindu Dharma has continuously generated great movements from within to secure the rights and human dignity of marginalized sections of the society even though colonial impoverishment affected the social emancipation process. Sri Narayana Guru, Mahatma Gandhi, Ayyan Kali are a few such examples where the Hindu society at large stood by Dalits and suppressed sections of the society. These need to be boosted, and not superseded by foreign interventions. The report also gives credit to communists/leftists as solution providers for the “Hindu” problem: “There are also attempts to fight caste-based discrimination through the spread of Marxist (commonly referred to as Leftist in the Indian context) ideology that denies all notions of God and religion.” (p.9) The report fails to explicitly bring out the fact that Indian leftists do not get rid of caste identity, but channel it and use it for their own purposes. People of Arundhati Roy’s ilk are busy re-educating the Munda tribes of central India that they are the “original Indians,” and that both “Aryans” and “Dravidians” are foreign invaders who have victimized them. This is inter-community civil war, not a “liberation” from caste identity. The report also praises E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker (EVR) whose organization later gave birth to the present DMK party of Karunanidhi. This is yet another simplistic statement thrown into the report without any attempt to analyze this movement in detail. This movement today is precisely what the aggressive “Christian Dravidian” movement builds on. It is these folks who tried to destroy Ram Sethu; who have seized many Hindu temple assets; who have replaced official Hindu holidays with Christian ones; who have created a religious apartheid against Hindus in general and Dalit Hindu children in particular in government educational concessions; and who have devastated Hindu social capital in every manner they possibly could. Emboldened by the Dravidianist polity there was even an unsuccessful attempt by the Church to change the name of Kanya-Kumari to ‘Kanni Mary’ (Virgin Mary). HAF claims that DMK “mainly represents the shudra castes of Tamil Nadu, preaches vehement atheism along with social reform.” That is a very shallow and obsolete view. Today, this organization represents a conglomerate of interests with the common thread of being “anti-Aryan” and “anti-Hindu”, for if there were no Aryan invasion then why would there be any need for a “Dravidian” identity movement in the first place? Those Hindus (such as HAF) who rightly fight the Aryan theories must understand that Dravidianism is its mirror image, and one cannot exist without the other. In order to intensify Dravidianism as a political force, the Aryan theory has to be constantly kept alive in the public consciousness. Nowhere in the world is a government more dependent on the Aryan theory for its survival than the DMK government. This is why they are supporting the church in its aggressive advocacy of a new history and politicized religion according to which the Tamil classics (both the Saiva Siddhanta and the Thirukural) were created under the Christian influence of St. Thomas! Yet HAF praises, without any semblance of analysis or discussion, that EVR was a great “reformer who successfully transferred social, political, and economic power to the numerically dominant shudra castes of Tamil Nadu.” (p.43) This is a perfect example of how superficial knowledge can lead to counterproductive conclusions that defeat the writers’ own stated goals! The report says that the chief responsibility for solving caste based discrimination lies with Hindu institutions, “because they have the authority and following of nearly all members of all communities and castes.” It is not at all clear what “Hindu institutions” HAF is referring to. Hinduism is not an organized religion that is institutionalized (in the manner of the Vatican in Catholicism, for instance.) Moreover, traditional Hindu institutions such as the mathas and pathashalas have been tremendously weakened in their influence over the Hindu masses, through colonialism and the politics of post-Independence India. The political, educational, cultural institutions and the media are predominantly controlled by secularized/non-Hindu interests; that is where the nexus of power in modern India rests. Many of the traditional Hindu groups that do have the capacity to initiate such changes have been highly regulated and controlled by government machinery in most Indian states. Political as well as missionary motivated leadership is increasingly encroaching this space of social authority, and creating more and more conflicts. In West Bengal and Kerala, the communists have controlled the institutions for many decades. In the states of the northeast as well as in Jammu and Kashmir, one can hardly claim that “Hindu institutions” control the authority. India’s national security authorities admit that approximately one-third of all districts in the country have Maoist establishments, many of which literally control the local law and order – not any “Hindu institution” in charge. If there is a necessity to present caste in international forums, the first Hindu advocacy report should feature the great work already being done by major Hindu organizations, and the concrete results they have produced since independence. This advancement is not trivial, even though a lot more work needs to be done. It would be irresponsible and not in the best interests of the downtrodden to undermine the Hindu organizations’ programs that are being successful, and replace them with imported programs brought under International Human Rights Laws. There are so many Hindu organizations working hard on the ground on this issue, that deserve recognition, but unfortunately, only the church related and leftist groups are given international recognition. Christians participate in world forums by putting themselves on a strong footing, presenting all the great work they claim to do. They never start on a weak footing with any kind of “apology” externally. Where is the Christian apology for the slaughter and rape perpetuated during the Inquisition in India and subsequent atrocities by its missionaries, or the Islamic apology for terrorism done in its name? Why must Hindus grovel just to gain standing in front of Western institutions? Can we imagine an Islamic group, that claims to be champions of Islam, to spread a report that condemns Sharia Law as a human rights violation, and that gives 20 pages of graphic and sensational incidents of Sharia based violations? The effects of this would be to support those who want Sharia Law outlawed by international bodies. Indeed, there are movements against Sharia Law, and a small number of liberal Muslims can be found among them. But these Muslims are not empowered and are on the fringes of legitimacy as spokespersons for Islam. They are not accepted as the voice of mainstream Islam. I cannot imagine a Christian or Muslim group taking their cases of abuse within their community to some foreign capital, and submitting it to foreign legal authorities to get them involved in dealing with it. That’s what many Indian rajas did before British colonial authorities when they had disputes among themselves, which they could not resolve internally. HAF certainly has the right to position itself as a movement that seeks to undermine Hinduism’s institutions in the same manner. But in that case, HAF should make its intentions public in front of its donors, and it should stop claiming to be speaking on behalf of the majority of Hindus. The report flies in the face of HAF’s posture that it speaks for Hinduism, rather than against it. This report will surely make HAF popular among the pseudo-secular crowd, Christian and Muslim groups, and Western academics of the kind one finds in RISA and AAR. HAF is free to cozy up to whomever it wants, but as a publicly supported organization, it has to be held accountable and answer to the serious concerns of its public constituency as to whether, and to what extent, it has been co-opted and is seeking to serve its own political/PR interests and/or the interests of others (such as its executives) whose interests may not align with those of the Hindu community. Contradictions, Errors, Omissions and Misrepresentations HAF conflates the traditional varna-jati two-dimensional structure with modern day one-dimensional “caste”. It gives some lip service to the distinction, but fails to keep these notions separate. It slips quickly into conflating all three of these terms into a hotchpotch mess. The report claims to have found 30 mentions of “caste” in Bhagavad Gita and up to 20 verses mentioning “caste” in Rigveda. This backward projection of “caste” on to Vedic texts is a mix up between Vedic and western frameworks, which becomes a major pitfall for them. It shows a complete failure to understand the paradigm of Vedic thought, which they simply map on to the modern western social studies paradigm. The failure to use dharma categories is typical of those who see Sanskrit terms as merely having symbolic (and perhaps “chauvinistic”) significance, failing to appreciate that these terms are simply non-translatable. Thus, they end up collapsing the whole tradition using pseudo-secular categories from western social sciences found in US textbooks, which, ironically, HAF wants to fight against. There is name-dropping of scholars in many places of the HAF report, leading Gautam Sen to write that some scholars have been “cited to insinuate intellectual legitimacy without really bothering with what they have had to say.” The report does not seem to understand varna when it says: “Historically, the varna system was more of a normative concept with little basis in social reality.” (p.6) It mistranslates Kshatriya as merely king/soldiers, when in fact all governance, politics, legislation, courts and attorneys, and even NGO activism, are forms of Kashatriyata today. It fails to appreciate that untouchables were not only determined by ritual impurity, but also those who lost in battles against invading Muslims were turned into slaves, and often castrated as a condition for having their lives spared. Many jatis were made landless by the British in the system of “lagaan” (as explained in the popular movie) and draconian zamindari for colonial tax collection. The “gypsies” of Europe (whose self identity is “Roma people”) are the untouchables of modern Europe, who were first taken as slaves from India to be sold in the slavery bazaars of Central Asia during Islamic rule. (See, for example the PhD. dissertation by Scott Levi, titled, “Hindus beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade.” A short summary is available at: http://www.jstor.org/pss/25188289. There have also been other dissertations written on slavery inside India during Islamic times, as well as under British rule.) Many of these Indian slaves in Central Asia eventually won their freedom, and ran in directions away from India, reaching various parts of Europe where they got reclassified as the “gypsy” underclass. Yet the report asserts: “With the notable exception of Japan, the issue of caste-based discrimination is mostly confined to South Asian communities, and is generally one where Hindus are both the perpetrators and victims.” (p.12) A large part of the problem is the report’s convoluted structure filled with contradictions, and lack of a clear thesis that is argued cogently. Nor is there any concrete call to action. This leads to ambiguity, such that anyone can use selective quotes from it as ammunition to make whatever case they choose to. In many instances, the report seems to be arguing against itself a few pages later, or it gives evidence pointing in one direction but makes an assertion in the opposite direction. While also claiming to be protecting Hinduism from its opponents, it supplies ammunition to the opponents, such as: “Hindus must acknowledge that caste arose in Hindu society, that some Hindu texts and traditions justify a birth-based hierarchy and caste-bias, and that it has survived despite considerable Hindu attempts to curtail it. Caste-based discrimination represents a failure of Hindu society…” (p.1) It goes on to apologize on behalf of Hinduism over and over again, such as the following examples of scolding: “The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) rejects explanations for the current situation that are occasionally proffered to gloss over caste-based discrimination: that India has laws in place that impose penalties on those who practice such discrimination, as well as laws that promote a robust system of caste-based affirmative action; that stratification of society existed, and continues to exist, in various forms in other countries besides India; that caste is likely a corrupted form of what was intended as a system of division of labor in ancient India and that this fact alleviates collective responsibility; that the much-maligned Manusmriti (one of the many ancient texts of Indian social law) was never the law of the land; and that caste-based discrimination exists even amongst Christian, Muslim and Sikh religious communities in India.” (p.9) “The caste system, as it has developed in the Indian subcontinent, is a birth-based hierarchy. What makes this caste system unique is that (i) its hierarchical and discriminatory presuppositions have pervaded and permeated very deeply in Indian society to an extent not seen anywhere else in the world; and (ii) it has withstood most attempts aimed at ending the practice right up until now… Unlike most social hierarchies, the caste system positioned the priests at the apex of the societal pyramid, even above the kings and princes, and has had the support of some of Hinduism’s numerous religious texts, especially those that dealt with rituals, law, and social organization. This functioned to embed it into the more orthodox elements of the belief system and in a way that has allowed it to survive to present day.” (p.4) “The whole system, along with its taboos and restrictions, is authenticated by religion or canon, thus implicating Hinduism in the eyes of many.” (p.6) The report’s suggested solutions are hardly new, original or based on actual field work to establish their practical viability. For instance, the whole section on “Police reform” is a superficial view of too broad an issue, entailing a massive bureaucratic reform, one of many such “reforms” cited that would each require a whole written volume by experts and not just a few sweeping sentences. Such superficial treatment renders the exercise useless from a constructive standpoint. It is the sort of proclamation that college undergraduate social groups announce in every campus to “solve world problems.” HAF’s methodology is flawed. It asked prominent Hindu spiritual and religious leaders to provide their positions on caste in very specific ways. The questions were worded as leading questions, intended to receive a certain kind of response. (For instance, they did not ask for information about what these Hindu organizations were already doing to help the under classes. That would have produced a different kind of report.) Most Hindu groups sent back some old materials they had written on caste in an unrelated context, and did not write anything fresh specific to this inquiry. HAF made the entire Section 8 of its report out of such materials. The questions and the responses did not touch upon the deeper issues I have raised here. Furthermore, HAF positioned this material as an endorsement of the report which it was not meant to be. HAF credited these groups for “taking time out of their very busy schedules to support HAF’s initiative.” This was name-dropping to boost the report’s credibility. Most of them had never read the HAF report. De-Colonizing HAF ‘Caste’ is an imported word in the Indian lexicon that is often mixed up with the indigenous terms, varna and jati. The three terms are not interchangeable, and the mapping of dharmic terms to Western terms that do not correspond correctly results in major distortion and ambiguity in the substance of the report. The loss of indigenous categories in the report led to a loss of dharmic framework to understand and hence deal with issues from within the tradition, which does have a long history of addressing social issues internally without external intervention. Jati refers to an age-old Indian social structure that goes across the boundaries of religion. It means “community” that is frequently an occupation-based group identity that emerged when skills (and hence professional capital) were passed down to one’s children. This system of transmitting expertise as a form of social capital led to ultra specialized closely-knit communities for various kinds of work. The modern education system (which India has not successfully implemented on a universal scale) tries to provide expertise that is independent of the parents’ occupation, potentially creating a more level playing field to compete based on expertise. Mobility of employment brings greater inter-mixing of communities, as evident in India’s metropolitan sectors. Hence, the issues are more correlated with education and employment mobility than with religion any longer. Though caste abuses are to be denounced, it is rash to try to eliminate jati in an absolute manner. Prof. Vaidyanathan of the prestigious Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, has spent years researching the role of jati-based economic empowerment. He cites World Bank and Indian government statistics to show that a large number of jati-based groups have used their internal cohesion to rapidly climb up the economic ladder. This phenomenon is what has made the “bottom of the pyramid” (a term coined by C.K. Prahalad) thrive in India, and has turned the rural areas into the fastest growing markets for industry. Referring to this kind of benefit of jati, Kalyanaraman says, “It is our social capital. We don’t have to become apologists.” Tom Friedman’s “flat world” is a great idea for the top tiers of Indian society, but its trickle-down effect has not reached the bottom of the pyramid. The western model of a society made of atomic individuals has led to the breakdown of families and communities. In such a model, the government social security is the only recourse for those who are handicapped, who fall on hard times, or are in old age. There is no local community support available very often. We know how this experiment has failed in the US where the social security system is virtually bankrupt. Is it ethical to export this failed model to India? In a poor country like India, the central government has even less chances of providing a safety net of social security to its vast population. Traditionally, the jati served as the safety net one turns to in times of distress. What would be the social security for Indians once devoid of closely knit communities that are held together by centuries of traditions and bonds? Already, in westernized cities such as Delhi, many elderly are being thrown out of their homes in this new era of western modernity that has arrived. There are “old age homes” now being built in Delhi for the first time. HAF better have a substitute in place, before dismantling the old structure too hastily. Jati cohesion has also been a form of collective bargaining of rights, and even during Mughal and British times the rulers had to face their power of collective bargaining. Dissolving jati became a British strategy to get rid of local power that was in the hands of Indians. Today, when a jati structure gets eradicated, the vacuum left is often filled by church-run or madrassa-run collective identities. The church “congregation” and Islamic “umma” are the alternative “new jatis” waiting to take over. Thus, the role played by jatis for resisting against conversions must be understood. Indeed, modern Indian democracy is increasingly driven by jati and similar identity formations. The two main political parties in India are becoming smaller in the percentage of votes they get, and the majority of votes in the elections go to the hundreds of small parties that focus on a given region, jati or combination. One must study the way these parties function by becoming a voice for a modern caste identity. The “caste problem” today, is a problem of perverted secularism for politicians’ self-interests. It is the result of modern democracy that encourages vote bank politics and fragmented parties, and this is why Arun Shourie has proposed a US style central presidential system. ‘Kshatriya Malpractice’ Sticking to my principle that professional critiques must focus on issues of substance, and not personalities, I would like to assert that there has to be a category of discourse dealing with Kshatriya Malpractice (a phrase I am coining), just as there is professional discussion on medical and legal malpractice. The point is that the intentions might be good, and I am willing to give the HAF leaders the full benefit of doubt as to their good intentions. But as in the case of medical malpractice, there can be Kshatriya Malpractice despite all the good intentions. The following is a list of specific lessons to be learned from this scandal in order to develop the notion of Kshatriya Malpractice further: 1. Confusing internal work with external kurukshetra: Those representing Hindu dharma must differentiate between what is an internal issue to resolve problems, as opposed to external issues in the global kurukshetra of today. They must avoid feeding ammunition to the likes of World Vision, Dalit Freedom Network, USCIRF and many others, by supplying them powerful quotes from a report by Hindus that support what these hostile organizations have been pushing for years, and that directly contradict the positions taken by Hindu groups in the forefront of important battles regarding the portrayal of Hinduism in the education system, etc. Any internal reforms or changes require internal deliberation and cooperation focused on grassroots activities and work, rather than issuing vague policy statements that make a lot of noise, but do not achieve any changes in the ground reality. The forum for beneficial changes is within India, not Washington DC. 2. Control over the debate: For a variety of reasons, the discourse on issues such as caste has been controlled in international circles by forces hostile to Hindu dharma – including Christians, western political hegemonies, Marxists and pseudo-secularists. Is HAF now supporting that discourse? Did it do a careful analysis of this point the way Rakesh Bahadur has pointed out forcefully? To the extent that such issues need to be addressed externally, such discussions should first focus on and compile the immense progress that Hindu groups have made in reducing social abuses, and present that. There should also be focus on the axiom that those in glass houses should not be the first to cast stones – i.e., what is the legitimacy of Western institutions in addressing internal social issues of India when they are plagued by the social ills of racism, growing wealth inequality, etc.? 3. Strategic planning capability: The board should evaluate its strategic thinking competence, and whether this kind of project was ill-conceived and poorly executed. It should introspect: What credentials does HAF have, and more particularly, the named authors of the report have, to claim to talk about caste and its position in Hinduism? What field work was done, how much of the scholarship was HAF’s original scholarship and to the extent it was not, how reliable was the secondhand data that HAF relied upon for its findings? Does HAF or the authors of this report have the adhikara or the authority to give broad statements that define what the “original” Hindu scriptures had to say about jati/varna? Also, on such a sensitive issue that would have serious ramifications for others working for the Hindu cause, why was consultation with other Hindu bodies and activists eschewed during the multiple years it took to write this report? 4. Accountability to donors: Just like politicians who make aggressive campaign promises and later find themselves trapped to deliver, one is left wondering whether HAF promised too many things for the money it raised, and hence had to act in panic to bring the report out. To show that funds are being well utilized, it has to periodically make a big splash in the media, and show how the media is covering it. The idea is to make the older generation of Hindu Americans feel proud that “our Hindu boys and girls” are becoming prominent, as if that ought to be a goal in itself. 5. Due process hijacked: HAF first publicly announced this project to publish such a report at a WAVES conference this past summer in Trinidad. At that time, I and many other scholars present were alarmed at the possible implications and fallout of such an initiative if undertaken without due care. We joined together to formally protest to HAF that what they had presented briefly of this project would be inappropriate to publish, without a detailed review by the rest of us. But HAF chose to proceed exclusively, and only involved those few who would agree with them. When I pointed this out after the report was released, I was viciously rebuffed for expressing my useless views on matters that I felt were critical to consider. People are concerned with the lack of internal due process to give Hindu voices an opportunity to express their positions. There was too much Washington style private lobbying to gather “votes” that say simple things like, “I support HAF”, etc. An organization claiming to be the voice for 2 million Hindus in America cannot act unilaterally while at the same time expecting to be recognized as the “pre-eminent” voice for Hindus. If HAF wants to act unilaterally without being held accountable to anyone, then it will have to stand alone and cannot be assured of the support of the community at large. 6. Crisis management: The board should also evaluate whether the crisis management was unprofessional and in bad taste, making things even worse for HAF. The personal attacks launched by board members for the first four days of the scandal backfired on them very seriously, and it took them too long to recognize the damage they were causing themselves by going ballistic against their critics. Rather than trying to build consensus behind the scenes before publishing a controversial report, they fanned the flames of what has turned into a blog war. 7. Exclusivity: A Hindu advocacy group must represent the other Hindu groups as well and not only itself. HAF has been accused by many persons of usurping other Hindu groups’ contributions in its quest for prominence. Also, it should not try to assume the policymaking role exclusively. 8. Need for mandate: One should introspect whether a Kshatriya group can legitimately try to represent Hindu dharma without any mandate (such as election of board members) from those it claims to represent. Serious consideration should be given as to whether corporate governance of the organization should be reformed to make it more transparent and accountable. 9. Media and PR brand management: Issuing letters to the editor and other press releases is one thing. It is an entirely different thing to issue an ill-conceived report that is presented as a definitive Hindu position on a complex and sensitive topic just to make a PR splash on International Human Rights Day, and to win points from US governmental bodies and the US mainstream press. Was there disregard for the collateral damage that would be caused by the report to the Hindu community, and a breach of HAF’s moral and dharmic duty to its constituents and supporters? This is what I mean by malpractice. I agree that HAF must become important in order to represent us effectively, but has there been too much craving for personal media coverage, and “who” supports the report as the overriding criteria of success? 10. Sellout vulnerability: I do not wish to accuse HAF of selling out at this point. But some caution is needed to prevent that from happening. I regret the reliance upon Prof Diana Eck of Harvard as the endorser to make HAF feel legitimate. She has worked for us and against us in the past, and is very political. Of course we need important persons as friends. But on whose terms? In the past, colonial rulers won over a segment of the colonized by making them feel “important” and “legitimate”, and in the bargain squeezed out those voices that were more challenging. This is how resistance gets diluted over time, be it corporate management dealing with a labor union, or an imperial power dealing with natives in the frontier. Seeking appointments in Washington, coverage in the western press, and endorsements from western academics is fine, provided that this does not take priority over uncompromising loyalty to one’s client. The New Washington Politics on Hinduism The recent mid-term elections has been a big boost for right-wing Christians joining the US Congress in large numbers starting in January, 2011. Obama is on the defensive and eager to make “deals” with them, sacrificing those items to their wishes that he does not consider critical to his own agenda. Hinduism has always been on the brink of US Congressional sanctions and US pressure that would amount to interference in India on the ground of “human rights.” I have warned of this for over a decade, such as in my series of articles on Rediff.com about the role of South Asian academics in feeding such anti-India policies. The new buzz of excitement in these radical right-wing Christian circles is that this is the right time to introduce bills in the US Congress whose ultimate effect would be to pressure the Indian government on certain social policies. Demands will be made that could try to: (1) open the floodgates for massive faith-based funding from overseas, in the guise of human rights, far more openly than before; (2) enact laws or policies in India to curtail Hindu voices further; (3) require that US corporate activities and investments in India should give employment preference to certain “minorities” and “oppressed” peoples, and Christian groups have prepared their ground forces in India over several years to pounce on this opportunity and claim the lion’s share of the benefits; and (4) start prosecuting caste-based “human rights violations” under international laws. I fear that HAF is acting under the pressure to either soften its stand in defending Hinduism, or face the music that could sideline it in these debates. The carrot available, if it plays ball according to the way the game is managed, would be that they would get a seat at the table of debates that would give them prestige. This is a dangerous game for HAF to enter without adequate supervision and wider consultation from its Hindu support base. Being prone to quick media brand recognition is a typical weakness that gets exploited as a vulnerability. Mere sincerity and good intentions are not adequate safeguards against this, when the stakes are so high. HAF might end up as the fools who’ve fallen into the trap set by knaves. |
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:32 PM
Subject: Re: Comments on HAF’s Report: “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste”
To: Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>
Cc: “Mihir Meghani (HAF)” <mihirDOThafsite.org>, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>, “Nagendra S. Rao (Google)” <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>
Aditi ji,
Saadar pranaam.
An extraordinary document, an impassioned appeal which shoots forth, so authentically, from the heart like an arrow. Hope HAF will see reason and withdraw their report before further damage is done. Hope also that this monograph of yours will make the hindu samajam get involved in providing guidance briefs to advocacy groups.
I have circulated it on the web.
The dharma of our pitr-s shall protect us. As you note (and which made me shed tears of joy as I read it): “Every morning, when I sit for puja, I invoke the rishis and the forefathers, and I feel his presence in my shrine room among all the other great sages and rishis and divine beings who line the corridors of the Hindu pantheon. I have bowed before him in remote temples in the Himalayas, and I have felt his blessings fall upon me.”
Your puja will protect the children, for generations to come, Aditi ji. The memories of our pitr-s is what gives us our identity and strength. Every deepam lit in Hindu homes is a ray of hope and assurance for all children, for all time. It is our responsibility to keep the deepam burning effulgent, an eternal, inextinguishable, perpetual flame. This is the deepam handed down to us by our maatr-s who have nourished us.
I again appeal to HAF to withdraw their report immediately and keep it in a secure forum for deliberation by Hindu samajam. This is necessary before further damage is done to the one global ethic cause which we have all joined to promote: dharma. Let us not fail our dharma. Else, our very purpose in life becomes meaningless, empty and just an ego trip, an aatman adrift.
With Devi Sarasvati’s anugraham, everything is possible.
dhanyosmi.
kalyanaraman
——— Forwarded message ———-From: Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>
Date: Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 10:57 PM
Subject: Comments on HAF’s Report: “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste”
To: “Mihir Meghani (HAF)” <mihirDOThafsite.org>
Cc: Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>, “S. Kalyanaraman” <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>, “Nagendra S. Rao (Google)” <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>
Dear Mihir,
Attached and pasted below are my personal comments on HAF’s report on caste in the form of an open letter to you. I sincerely hope that you will work with others in the community to address the serious concerns raised here and elsewhere.
Regards,
Aditi
_______Dear Mihir,
I’m sure that by now you’ve received a barrage of emails re the HAF report on caste. I won’t be redundant by repeating criticisms that have already been issued, though I am in general agreement with the serious concerns raised by Rakesh Bahadur, Rajiv Malhotra, Dr. Gautam Sen, Dr. Kalyanaraman, et al. I did, however, want to express my personal comments on the report.
For the reasons given by others in their comments as well as the reasons set forth below, HAF must immediately withdraw the report and reissue it only if and when it substantially incorporates the revisions to be provided by a select group of scholars that address the community’s grave concerns and objections. There are many ways to achieve this, and surely we can find a way to structure such a process that would be satisfactory to you as well as the other concerned parties. This is absolutely critical and urgent for the sake of the Hindu community as well as for HAF’s sake, or else this may turn out to be a rift within the community that cannot be mended.
Here are my main objections to the report (to the extent not covered by the other comments):
(1) Despite being 160+ pages long, it is not at all clear what HAF’s position is on the issue of caste. There’s so much CYA language going in all directions that the report ends up simultaneously saying too much and saying nothing at all.
For example, the report states that it is the position of HAF that “We believe in equal religious and spiritual rights for all Hindus, including a priesthood that is open to all Hindus.” (p. 56) The report also refers to a 2006 press release by HAF, where HAF stated: “The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) welcomed [sic] the a order of the government of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu allowing all Hindus with the required training and qualification to become archakas (priests) in temples regardless of caste.”
Does this mean you (as an advocacy group) will openly call for the government of India to interfere (even more than they are already interfering) in the internal affairs of temples to enforce some quota or other variant of affirmative action for non-Brahmin Hindus?
If not, are you demanding that temples themselves do this? Are you arrogating to yourself the authority to tell temples how to conduct their internal affairs?
Let’s leave India out of it, since you are the Hindu “American” Foundation. Will you undertake such intervention for American temples? Also, since the report states ad nauseum that HAF opposes birth-based discrimination, I presume as a logical matter this includes gender. Is it HAF’s official position that the “priesthood” (which is an inaccurate term since there is no institutionalized “priesthood” in Hinduism but rather various sampradayas and paramparas and mathas that have their own rules) should be open to women? Will you call for governmental interference to ensure such measures are taken in individual temples?
If the answer is yes that you are going to undertake such interventions, then it is important for us to know this. Please address where you get the mandate or authority to make such decisions on behalf of Hindu temples / sampradayas / paramparas / mathas. (Citing the 13 statements appended to your report by various swamis does not count here as a CYA, as it is not clear that any of them had the opportunity to read your report in full before giving their statements.)
If the answer is no, that you are not advocating such intervention, and that the report instead is just intended as a general summary of HAF’s policy position on caste and recommendations for the community and various Hindu leaders and institutions to consider, then I have one simple question which is also my next objection:
(2) What was the point of HAF releasing this report? To the extent any internal reforms are urged by you to be undertaken, why not make these recommendations privately and directly to the concerned parties rather than rebuffing them publicly (other than out of a fear you wouldn’t get brownie points from the US government and other secular institutions / progressive groups you appear to be cozying up to in return)?
To the extent any position on caste had to be taken by you as an advocacy group in the public arena, there were many different ways the same effect could have been achieved without inflicting the severe collateral damage the report has unleashed.
You could have simply made a one-paragraph statement like the following:
“We believe in the rule of law and that under law, each individual has equal dignity and must be treated equally, and therefore discrimination should be thoroughly prohibited by law (except to the extent required to undo past inequities). We believe the internal laws of India are robust enough to prevent birth-based discrimination along the lines of caste, and to the extent there are problems enforcing the laws, that is a matter of law enforcement and we support full prosecution of the laws in ending caste discrimination. While, in some respects, this is also a social issue, we applaud the efforts of those grassroots organizations that are working to eradicate social divisions and we will continue to support their efforts. To that effect, we particularly acknowledge the efforts of [cite groups] to banish the ills of social divisions and discrimination. We will work together with Hindu groups and acharyas to work towards the upliftment of the downtrodden.”
What does your 170-page report achieve in terms of elaborating a suitable policy position that the paragraph above does not? Why would such a paragraph not suffice for the same purpose of addressing people in debates, etc.? Why waste 100+ pages on copying and pasting news links and random quotes from the Hindu scriptures to offer some kind of mea culpa on behalf of Hinduism that is self-serving for your purposes and to make some unilateral and arrogant demand for the “rejection” of various Hindu scriptures? How was any of this at all required for the simple purpose of adopting a clear and appropriate policy position on caste discrimination? Which brings me to my next and biggest objection:
(3) HAF does not have the authority or competence to make statements about the position of caste in Hinduism; to demand that Hindu acharyas conform their teachings to HAF’s policy position; or to demand that Hindus actively reject portions of Hindu scriptures and teachings that do not conform to HAF’s whitewashed, politically correct preferred version of Hinduism.
Had the report been confined to an argument based on civil rights or law for more measures to ensure the prevention of discrimination against lower castes, I would not object to the issuance of the report. What I do object to is HAF claiming to definitively conclude that caste-based discrimination or birth-based hierarchy (whatever those terms mean) are not inherent to Hinduism and that to the extent any teachings or scriptures say to the contrary, such teachings and scriptures must be rejected.
In taking this position, HAF has crossed a line and seriously overstepped its bounds.
The report takes this position baldly: “HAF supports the reanalysis and subsequent rejection of any and all teachings that promote caste-based discrimination and birth-based hierarchy. … Hindu religious and spiritual leaders must take the lead in ensuring that those parts of the various scriptures that promote notions of caste-based discrimination and a birth-based hierarchy are explicitly denied any authority in the minds of their followers.”
First of all, HAF’s discussion of how caste is not inherent to Hinduism is shallow and grossly oversimplified. Stating that everything is Brahman and therefore birth-based differences are irrelevant is a disingenuous answer. Even the most Advaitin of Advaita Vedantins adhere to the principle that while the physical world has no fundamental reality it has transactional validity—or, as in the movie Inception, when in the dream world, the rules of the dream world are operative and have operating reality—and that when operating on the vyavaharika (mundane world) level, one has to take into account the world one encounters, the reality one sees.
Our rishis saw that people are not “born equal,” in the sense that we come into the world with different gunas (characteristics) and aptitudes and are born into a variety of circumstances in accordance with our karma from past births. We see this reality all the time. We see people born into vastly different circumstances—some rich, some poor, some healthy, some gravely ill. What our rishis recognized is that these differences are not random but rather are a product of karma accrued through past lives resulting in the current incarnation. One way of responding to and acknowledging these self-evident differences was through the social institutions of jati and varna.
HAF’s position that everything is Brahman and therefore no birth-based differences exist is extremely shallow and intellectually lazy. Such a position strikes at the very root of the core principles of karma and reincarnation that are foundational to Hinduism.
Does HAF reject the principles of karma and reincarnation when it eschews the concept of birth-based differences?
Acknowledging such birth-based differences is not tantamount to calling for discrimination; it is a metaphysical ontology that is fundamental to the Hindu worldview. One can have this worldview and still agree that there should be no discrimination as a legal and social matter. However, this worldview that takes into account differences at birth cannot be discarded just because it is inconvenient to HAF.
If one wants to say that there may be birth-based differences but that there should not be birth-based discrimination, that is easy enough to say without having to make all these verbal gymnastics of saying Hinduism does not believe in the relevance of birth-based differences—such a statement can in any case be contradicted in a number of places, not just in quotes from the scriptures but through the analysis of various stories from the Puranas which generally show that people are affected by nature AND nurture and that gunas inherent from birth do impact the development of an individual although are not necessarily determinative. Perhaps such a worldview does not conform to your Westernized mindset of inherent equality, etc., but just because you don’t like it, just because it may not be politically correct enough for you, does not mean you can arrogantly and unilaterally revise Hinduism to say what you wish it says.
Presenting a table of scriptures that tabulate what % (based on word or shloka count) talks about caste (which again is not mappable onto the scriptures as there is no equivalent word for “caste” in Sanskrit) is irrelevant and does not prove anything. Hinduism is not a religion of the book; it is a religion based on traditions transmitted through sampradayas and paramparas that are in conformity with the scriptures but not confined to them. Thus, such a verse-counting analysis is shallow and misleading at best. Nor is it at all necessary as the ills of caste-based discrimination can be wholly addressed through legal means and social reform without getting into these thorny issues.
I could live with all of the above had HAF not made the brash and unforgivable and totally unacceptable demand that certain portions of our scriptures must be rejected by our acharyas and by the Hindu community. That is a fundamental attack on Hinduism, no less an attack just because it happens to come from a “Hindu” organization.
It is true, as HAF states, that the Smritis “by their very nature and intent, are recognized to change with space and time and do not necessarily teach Hinduism’s eternal spiritual truths.” (p. 1). However, that does not mean one can cherry-pick among the texts to pick out verses they like and call them the real Hinduism and discard the others. Such reinterpretations are the province of spiritual giants such as Veda Vyasa, Adi Shankara, etc., who have the spiritual advancement and tapobala to institute such evolutions within Hinduism. It is not a grant of license for political organizations to selectively cherry-pick their favorite bits of our scriptures.
As described above, HAF has called for the rejection of any part of a scripture that promote notions of birth-based hierarchy. Again, it is not at all clear what constitutes birth-based hierarchy in HAF’s mind. Per Vishal’s analysis, at least some verses of various Vedas discuss some notion of caste. Is it HAF’s view that such portions of the Vedas are to be rejected by Hindus? Is HAF asking Hindu acharyas to reject Vedic shlokas, which are the very fountainhead, the most sacrosanct of the sacrosanct sources of Hindu dharma?
HAF cavalierly dismisses and denigrates the Manu Smrti, casually saying that since no one reads it anyway, it’s irrelevant and therefore can be safely dropped and dismissed. Presumably, HAF’s call to reject scriptures advocating for “birth-based hierarchy” would entail rejection of the Manu Smriti and other Dharmashastras.
I will not reject the Manu Smriti and I will not reject any portion of Hinduism’s sacred scriptures, whether Shruti or Smriti, just because it is not in conformity with HAF’s policy position. All of Hinduism’s scriptures are revered and venerated and sacrosanct. They are not dead texts to be surgically carved up with unfavored parts to be exorcised at whim.
In its arrogance, HAF has denigrated the faith of a billion people. It is not necessary to read the Manu Smriti to have faith and reverence in it. Being a Hindu is not a textual exercise—it is shraddha in our traditions, in our scriptures, in our rishis and forefathers through the ages. Hinduism hasn’t survived because of intellectual analyses. Hinduism has survived because of the faith of its people, the reverence of the masses for our scriptures, our rishis, our pantheon of devas and devis. HAF is trampling on the faith of traditional Hindus by brashly demanding that acharyas reject portions of the scriptures that HAF dislikes.
I will tell you who Manu is to me. He is our first law-giver; he is our first forefather; he and his descendants are the rulers of our universe. Every morning, when I sit for puja, I invoke the rishis and the forefathers, and I feel his presence in my shrine room among all the other great sages and rishis and divine beings who line the corridors of the Hindu pantheon. I have bowed before him in remote temples in the Himalayas, and I have felt his blessings fall upon me.
Perhaps for HAF the Manu Smriti is just an old book, Manu just an old dead guy. But for me, and for millions of others, the Manus, the rishis who gave us our scriptures, and the scriptures themselves, are living manifestations of the Divine. They are accepted as Divine, and we have abiding faith in their wisdom, in their divinity, in the blessings conferred by them. We will not turn our backs on them or on any part of them.
Anyone who attacks Manu attacks Hinduism. We fought against Doniger for attacking Rama and the Ramayana. I will fight anyone who attacks Manu or the Manu Smriti and calls for them to be exorcised from Hinduism. This does not mean that the words of Manu Smriti are to be applied literally; but it also does not mean that the Manu Smriti is to be rejected. There is a fine line between the two.
HAF has overstepped its bounds grossly, and if it persists in calling for the rejection of portions of Hindu scriptures, then it can no longer present itself as a Hindu advocacy group that speaks for Hindus or presents a Hindu voice. It is acting no differently than Doniger and others of her ilk who have also grossly distorted Hinduism to suit their own proclivities.
Many of us opposed Doniger when she attacked Hinduism; I have no hesitation in opposing HAF when it attacks the Dharmashastras and the Hindu dharma by maligning Manu, who was our first law-giver and the forefather of all humans and all Hindus, and various of our Hindu scriptures. We must have conviction in our own dharma. I will not apologize for our Shruti and our Smritis. I will not apologize for Manu. Let us live by the rule of law, certainly; let us not practice discrimination. But I will not reject a single word of our scriptures.
The issue here is bigger than one report about caste. It is about the soul of HAF. What does HAF stand for? Will it be an organization that stands for Hinduism and Hindus, or will it make the compromises it must to advance its own interests and to curry favor with the political and media mainstream? If HAF is willing to throw away parts of our scriptures to suit its purposes, what else that is Hindu will be discarded to suit HAF’s convenience? Where does the line get drawn? This is just one report on caste—but what will come next?
HAF with the issuance of this report has sadly pitted different factions of the Hindu community against each other. In this, you have shamefully divided the Hindu community. Not because anyone advocates caste-based discrimination but because the report has been so clumsily put together, so damning in the inconsistent and ill-defined positions adopted and the reasoning used, so politically lethal to the interests of Hindus here and abroad, that people are being forced to take an opposing stand in order to mitigate the damage to the causes dear to our hearts. If HAF is willing to work with the community, the damage can be somewhat rectified. But if HAF turns its back on the community, then we will have to turn our backs on you forcefully and explicitly.
As Rakeshji said in his email, it is hurtful to have to turn against one’s own people. We would all prefer to instead work together. But dharma is bigger than any individual or any organization. If HAF persists in distorting Hinduism and calling for the exorcism of certain portions of Hindu scriptures that you find inconvenient, then you are standing for adharma, notwithstanding the fact that you all may be Hindus by birth or self-identification. Dharma is bigger than any individual or organization. If, for the sake of dharma, HAF must fall, then so be it.
This is not a passing storm that will subside when tempers cool. Be assured that if you persist in this way, many of us stand ready to ensure that your funding is cut and that your ability to inflict such damage on the Hindu cause in the future is severely curtailed.
Sincerely,
Aditi Banerjee
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 1:02 PM, S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com> wrote:
Aditi ji,
Saadar pranaam.
An extraordinary document, an impassioned appeal which shoots forth, so authentically, from the heart like an arrow. Hope HAF will see reason and withdraw their report before further damage is done. Hope also that this monograph of yours will make the hindu samajam get involved in providing guidance briefs to advocacy groups.
I have circulated it on the web.
The dharma of our pitr-s shall protect us. As you note (and which made me shed tears of joy as I read it): “Every morning, when I sit for puja, I invoke the rishis and the forefathers, and I feel his presence in my shrine room among all the other great sages and rishis and divine beings who line the corridors of the Hindu pantheon. I have bowed before him in remote temples in the Himalayas, and I have felt his blessings fall upon me.”
Your puja will protect the children, for generations to come, Aditi ji. The memories of our pitr-s is what gives us our identity and strength. Every deepam lit in Hindu homes is a ray of hope and assurance for all children, for all time. It is our responsibility to keep the deepam burning effulgent, an eternal, inextinguishable, perpetual flame. This is the deepam handed down to us by our maatr-s who have nourished us.
I again appeal to HAF to withdraw their report immediately and keep it in a secure forum for deliberation by Hindu samajam. This is necessary before further damage is done to the one global ethic cause which we have all joined to promote: dharma. Let us not fail our dharma. Else, our very purpose in life becomes meaningless, empty and just an ego trip, an aatman adrift.
With Devi Sarasvati’s anugraham, everything is possible.
dhanyosmi.
kalyanaraman
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 12:12 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on HAF’s Report: “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste”
To: Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>
Cc: “Mihir Meghani (HAF)” <mihirDOThafsite.org>, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, “S. Kalyanaraman” <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>, “Nagendra S. Rao (Google)” <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>
Your illustrious forebear, N. C. Chatterjee, a founder and President of the Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Sabha (collaborator of the other great man, Shyamaprosad Mukherjee) whom we Hindus revere as the saviour* of Bengali Hindus during the1940s, has reason to feel proud of his great grand daughter. He was an outstanding lawyer and well versed in our scriptural traditions, in whose footsteps you are following with much distinction.
Gautam
* These two doughty warriors ensured that an undivided Bengal, the Bengal of Chaitanya, the Tagores, Ram Mohan Roy. Ramakrishna and our beloved, Vivekananda, did not fall prey to Jinnah’s machinations.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Kalavai Venkat <kalavai.venkatDOTgmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:39 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on HAF’s Report: “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste” — Aditi Banerjee
To: “S. Kalyanaraman” <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>, “Nagendra S. Rao (Google)” <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>, Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>, “Mihir Meghani (HAF)” <mihirDOThafsite.org>
Very good analysis from Aditi. Prof. Paul Younger wrote that Hinduism is presented in the academia with a Protestant bias, and it is depicted in a way Protestant scholars want Hinduism to be. Unfortunately, many Hindus also absorb the same biases. In this case, HAF seems to have succumbed to it. It is probably the compulsion of having to work in a Christian society where they also interact with politicians. Hindus must understand that trying to please Christians and indulging in endeavors such as this to make Hinduism palatable to the Christian west are futile exercises.
Prof. Dirks, Prof. Srinivas and others have shown that caste has been a very dynamic and fluid institution. HAF could attempt to bring those facts to light instead of apologizing for caste based on a faulty understanding that has been imposed upon them by the Christian west. Who is really wanting to become temple priests? The job does not pay. Priestly families are literally starving. Now you want to take away their subsistence living too just because you want your white buddies to commend your liberal stance? You have chosen the weakest and the least defended section of society (Brahmin priests) as your soft target to earn your laurels. Shame on you.
This report is a sign of the pathetic levels our own Hindu intelligentsia can stoop to so as to win some admiration from cultural or religious Christian whites. Is HAF even aware that most temples in India are not administered by Brahmin priests but served by a different jati group traditionally? Do you want to try advocating taking away the Mariamman temples of the South Arcot district from the Vanniyar community? You will learn it is a different battle from taking on soft targets. But don’t worry. Your white friends would have never heard of Vanniyars. May be HAF can serve a worthy cause by demanding that priests in Christan churches and schools (funded by tax money) in India be representative of all castes and that their appointment be guided by principles of social justice. The US State Department will turn the heat under their seats should they attempt such things!
What is all this nonsense about rejecting a smriti that was written two millennia ago? Each smriti or dharmashastra is a product of its time. It is of no more than of literary or historical interest today. It seems our own westernized Hindus have been so intimidated by the Christian bullies that they want to reject texts from a bygone era.
Those Hindus that want to apologize for caste merely need to read the Bible to see what a pathetic, discriminatory, and bigoted text it is. Mark Twain wrote about the Bible: “It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.” Yet you don’t find Christians apologizing for it. It is a tragedy our westernized Hindus should feel so intimidated by the bullying tactics the Christians employ.
I would seriously suggest that HAF and other Hindu organizations that are frightened by Christian bullying to learn a few lessons from Muslim groups. Have you ever seen them apologize for what is in the Quran or the Hadiths? Do you see how effectively they have marshaled the left to their side? Are you guys aware that in the public schools in the USA it is mandatory to observe Ramadan and offer zakat in the seventh grade? Muslims won their battle against Christians instead of getting frightened.
You may win or lose a battle. As long as you have fought without getting intimidated you can hold your head high honorably. There is nothing more disgusting than a Hindu group groveling at the feet of Christian bullies with such reports as the one HAF has produced.
Regards,
KV
Understanding Caste in India by Subhash Kak
================================================
Mankind Quarterly, vol 34, 1993, pp. 117-123
Understanding Caste in India
by Subhash Kak
When viewed broadly, social relations in society can be seen as mimicking
technology. Past few centuries have seen the focus of technology to change
from clocks to steam engines to computers. Paralleling this was the change in
science from Newtonian mechanics to thermodynamics to the holistic views of
quantum mechanics and information theory. The contemporary age is the age of
computers and information. Science and technology have seen a shift from the
simple to the complex. Societies have changed from the feudal to the
democratic and we see new developments that have been called post-modern.
This path has led to increasing consolidation, although one sees signs of a
coming fragmentation. One would expect that social organization would now be
based on symbols and information. The massive movements of people after the
Second World War has also ensured that ethnic diversity will compel societies
everywhere to confront issues of multiculturism.
Ancient Indian society had information and symbols as its focus. This
happened because the science of the mind was the most prized science in
ancient India. Cognitive science is considered a major frontier of modern
science. This science is being studied only with respect to the individual
but also social groups. Individuals use language to express themselves;
social organizations also represent a language that reflects the cognitive
categories of the society. Social structure codes societal processes. No
living structure can be based on closed categories.
Caste has been often seen through the dichotomous categories of reductionist
logic. We wish to show that its proper understanding can emerge only if a
holistic paradigm is used for its analysis.
Actors and agents
Europe’s successes in the past two centuries were undoubtedly due to the
technology, science, and organization that were created as a response to the
discovery of the new world. The colonial successes of Europe were
facilitated by a mastery of signs obtained in the struggles joined in trade.
As sailors and traders the Europeans learnt to appreciate the power of signs.
On the other hand, the old civilizations were so inwardly focused that there
was a refusal to learn the language of the outsider.
Since then other unintended consequences of the mastery of signs have come to
light. The interpretation of signs into European languages could not have
been a one way process. The native interlocutors were themselves
interpreting the facts in order to conform to the expectations of the
interrogators. The analysis that emerged was thus based on many false
premises. Nevertheless, in the post-colonial era the native elites, now
properly literate only in the European languages, have embraced this
analysis. This is a fascinating illustration of how representations can
altar reality. This prefigures the change in the self-image in the West by
the images fostered by television and the media.
As example consider the Brahmin caste. Books by Indologists routinely
translate this into priest. But in reality priests have had very low status
in India. To give the extreme example, the Mahabrahmin priests, who
supervise funeral services, have been “treated much like untouchables.” The
reality of status is highly paradoxical; the brahmin is respected if he
renounces his expected function. The reality runs counter to the claims of
generations of Indologists.
Theories of caste
There is no synonym for caste in any Indian language. The Indian words that
caste supposedly translates are jati, which means a large kin-community or
descent-group, and varna, which implies a classification based on function.
The word varna is from ancient Sanskritic theory implying class it has no
real relevance to the modern notion of “caste”; the word jati properly
denotes what may be termed as a group bound by custom and tradition. The
dynamics between the jatis has been influenced a great deal by historical and
political factors. During the periods of economic growth, the jatis have
been relatively open-ended; during periods of hardships the jatis have tended
to draw in for the sake of survival. The word caste comes from the Portugese
casta, a word that was meant to describe the jati system, but slowly it has
come to have a much broader connotation.
Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to India, noted the existence of seven
classes that were apparently jatis. The jatis were integrated into a
cooperative system where each had a role and was cared for. One could
consider it as a kind of a decentralized social security system where
contracts were negotiated within the yajamana (jajmani) framework. The
dominant caste provided basic necessities to the other jati groups in
exchange for services. The activities in the village could be viewed as a
symbolic ritual where the yajamana was the patron (Kak, 1993). The yajamana
system is thus based on the recognition by the dominant group that it is a
part of a larger community and therefore it has an obligation to support the
other communities.
Rigveda 10.90 speaks of the Brahmana, Rajanya (Kshatriya), Vaishya, and
Shudra as having sprung from the head, the arms, the thighs, and the feet of
Purusha, the primal man. This mention of varnas has been taken to indicate
that a caste system existed in the Vedic times. But it is repeatedly
mentioned elsewhere that each human is in the image of the Purusha which
would indicate that each human internalizes aspects of all the varnas. Many
texts proclaim that one’s nature alone, and not birth, determines to which
varna one belongs. It is generally agreed that in the ancient Aryan society
the varnas were functional groupings and not closed endogamous birth-descent
groups. Basham (1967, p.148) suggests that the jati system in its modern
form developed very late. The Chinese scholar Hsuan Tsang in the seventh
century was not aware of it. As a response to historical events one might
then credit the emergence of the modern jati system to the next fundamental
change in the Indian polity that occurred with the invasions of the Turks.
In its long history India has had diverse social and religious currents. It
is only in the exception that the reality has conformed to the theory of the
Dharma Shastras. The Vaishnavas emphatically define varna based on one’s
actions. The Bhagavata Purana 7.11 proclaims clearly: “One’s nature alone
determines to which varna one belongs”. The Tantrists claim that all those
who accept the Kula (Tantric) dharma become Kauls (Mahanirvana Tantra 14.180-
9).
What is caste
If one limits oneself to an analysis of the term jati, one would see that its
implications have varied with history. Many scholars believe that the system
of jati that we have now emerged only about a thousand years ago. If we
accept that view then this emergence was perhaps a response to the
catastrophic disruption to legal and political institutions caused by the
Turkish invasions. With the destruction of the previous political order,
different occupational communities created their own systems of justice and
governance. In this situation, a local social structure developed which
centered about the dominant community.
Although 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 image of the other must, by its very nature, be a gross
simplification and it will never conform exactly to reality.
The question of pollution
It has been claimed that the castes are separate but interdependent
hereditary groups of occupational specialists. Thus Dumont postulates that
the principle of purity-impurity keeps the segments separate from one
another. In this system each jati closes its boundaries to lower jatis,
refusing them the privileges of intermarriage and other contacts defined to
be polluting. Facts belie the Dumont theory: Indian Muslims and Christians
also have jatis. The eighteenth century German society was divided into
princes, nobles, burghers, peasants and serfs between whom no marriage other
than morganatic was possible. Korea and Japan also had the practice of
untouchability.
Part of the mystification of the Indian social system has occurred due to a
flawed understanding of the notion of ritual. Hindu ritual is meant to
capture the connections between the human and the cosmic and highlight the
paradoxes of separation and unity. Ritual is a symbolic representation of
basic analytical knowledge where the context of the knowledge is not widely
known. A normative social structure is acknowledged to be arbitrary and
meant to be broken. The outsider has tended to assign an importance to
ritual in Indian discourse unwarranted by reality. The understanding of
pollution, and its relation to ritual, has varied across region and age.
Quigley in his recent book The Interpretation of Caste notes that the
notion of caste is a very complex one. Ideologies of materialism, that
consider caste as a rationalization of social inequality, and idealism, in
which caste is taken to represent notions of relative purity, are incapable
of providing adequate explanations. In recent decades the idealist position,
presented by sociologists like Louis Dumont has become the dominant one.
According to Quigley:
[The] practitioners of [recent anthropology] cling on to the flotsam
of a theory which their own evidence devastatingly undermines. Unable
to visualize a general structure of caste which would displace
Dumont’s theory; they hang on to it unremittingly even though their
own evidence shows again and again that this theory simply does not
explain what is known about India… The entrenched idea that
“Brahmans are the highest caste” has done most to hinder an
alternative formulation of how caste systems work.
Quigley bases his own analysis on the relationships between the king and the
priest, defined very early in the Vedic times, that has recently been
examined by the Dutch scholar J.C. Heesterman. This analysis defines the
role of castes in terms of relationships with the dominant economic and
political groups. But ultimately such an approach is unsatisfactory because
the Vedic texts describe the relationship between the priest and the king in
relation to ritual. To use the theory of such relationship for the secular
world is not quite correct. Few Brahmins were ever priests; also there have
always been non-Brahmin priests.
Coda
One might wonder why the caste system developed in India. It has been argued
that European and Western traditions, owing to their exclusivist nature, set
out to obtain uniform belief and practices. The inclusivist nature of the
Indian religions, on the other hand, places each group in a larger system.
Some have suggested that the Buddhist horror of taking life led to
untouchability; as proof they point to parallels with Korea and Japan.
Some have argued that Indian society is highly transactional: the giver is of
superior rank to the receiver and the served is superior to the server. But
this leads to contradictions: Is the Brahmin beggar receiving or being
served? If caste is an endogamous descent-group, one would expect a new
system of competitive descent-groups replace the system that was
characterized by localized hierarchy owing to the isolation of the village.
But as before there will be several ideologies behind the impulse to form
communities.
Srinivas pointed out that the process of Sanskritization is responsible for
movement within the jati system. Sanskritization implies emulating a
dominant caste of any high varna. One should add that there also exists the
dynamic of fragmentation. Ancient Indian political theory speaks of an
opposition between settled community (grama) and wilderness (aranya). Even
during the Mughal rule there was a similar divide between the revenue paying
region called ra’iyati and the rebellious known as mawas. There has existed
such a divide in terms of the belief system as well. Various movements have
sought to overturn the varna system. In recent times, the institution
of quotas has prompted many groups to seek classification as “low” caste.
The social structure of India reflects no single ideology which is why no
single theory has proved to be rich enough to describe the system. The system
represents several symbiotic ideologies. These ideologies are balanced by
political and economic forces. The ideologies of the brahmin, the
aristocrat, the trader, and the commoner were all proclaimed to be equivalent
in their effectiveness in obtaining knowledge: this was reflected in the
paths of jnana yoga, karma yoga, raja yoga, and bhakti yoga. Even festivals
like Sarasvati puja, Dassera, Divali, and Holi celebrate the different
attitudes.
New technology, science, and political organization will change the social
institutions of India. In many ways the modern Indian castes are no more
than the ethnic communities in the West. The societal organizations of the
West and the East can thus be seen to converge.
References
Basham, A.L. 1967. The Wonder That Was India. London: Sidgwick and Jackson.
Dumont, Louis 1970. Homo Hierarchicus. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Heesterman, J.C. 1985. The Inner Conflict of Tradition. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Kak, Subhash 1993. The astronomy of Vedic altars. Vistas in Astronomy, vol.
36, pp. 117-140.
Kolenda, Pauline 1978. Caste in Contemporary India: Beyond Organic
Solidarity. Menlo Park: Benjamin/Cummings.
Marriott, McKim 1976. Hindu transactions: diversity without dualism. In Bruce
Kapferer, ed., Transaction and Meaning. Philadelphia: Institute for the
Study of Human Issues.
Quigley, Declan 1993. The Interpretation of Caste. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Srinivas, M.N. 1962. Caste in Modern India. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Zinkin, Taya 1962. Caste Today. London: Oxford University Press.
===============================================================
Annals of BORI, vol. 77, 1996, pp. 235-240
A Note of Caste
by Subhash Kak
It is generally accepted that all the Kashmiri Hindus belong to the same
community or jati. Is that because they belong to a single caste or varna
resulting from the conversion of the other castes to Islam? Or does this
represent a variant of Hindu religion where the caste system does not exist?
Let me first deal with the designation Pandit that is applied to Kashmiri
Hindus. According to Henny Sender in her book The Kashmiri Pandits (1988),
this designation was requested by Jai Ram Bhan, a Kashmiri courtier in the
Mughal court, in Delhi, of the Emperor Muhammad Shah (1719-1749), and it was
granted. Apparently, before this period both Kashmiri Hindus and Muslims were
addressed as khuajah in the Mughal court.
Kashmiri Hindus call themselves Batta, from the Sanskrit bhartri, meaning
master. Such an appellation may be a reflection of the community’s self-image
that emphasizes success and excellence and it need not have any sociological
implications. Two subgroups, that were sometimes considered to be separate,
are Buher, and Purib: Buher (from the Kashmiri word for grocer) and Purib
(for easterner). It appears most likely that these subgroupings, that have
all but disappeared now, reflected the profession of business in the case of
Buher and ancestry that could be traced to an immigrant from east India.
Kashmiri Hindus have other names that indicate ancestry outside India; for
example, the last name Turki. There are others who argue that the name Turki
stuck to a Kashmiri family that visited Turkestan. Although this is
plausible, the idea that communities in each Kashmir, as in other regions,
lived in watertight compartments is negated by other evidence. The category
of the Kashmiri Hindu has been fluid and it has admitted those that wished to
belong to it.
The dominant philosophical and religious system current in Kashmir is that of
Shaivism. According to the texts of the Shaivites all those who accept the
Kula (Shaivite) dharma become Kauls, irrespective of their background. The
Shaivite initiation has always been open to everyone— and that includes
women. There are accounts of how Abhinavagupta, the great Shaivite
philosopher who lived about a thousand years ago, had several women
disciples. Later, Kashmir had great women sages such as Lalleshvari and Rupa
Bhavani.
The fact that Kashmiri Hinduism is universal does not mean that social
inequity did not exist in Kashmir. Such inequity reflected the social and
political ideas of its times and it did not spring from any fundamental
religious considerations.
So is Kashmiri Hinduism different from Hinduism elsewhere? The surprising
answer is no! There is evidence that there was no caste system in the Vedic
times. The Brahma Purana says that during the golden age (Krita Yuga)
everyone was a Brahmana. The famous Purushasukta hymn of the Rigveda (10.90)
speaks of the Brahmana, Rajanya (Kshatriya), Vaishya, and Shudra as having
sprung from the head, the arms, the thighs, and the feet of Purusha, the
primal man. This mention of varna has been taken to indicate that a caste
system existed in the Vedic times. But it is repeatedly mentioned elsewhere
that each human is in the image of the Purusha which would indicate that each
human internalizes aspects of all the varnas. So the label of a specific
varna applied to a person may have implied the dominant personality trait. At
a larger level, the varnas represented four broad classes.
Late texts speak of how everyone is a shudra when born, implying that the
yajnopavit (mekhala) ceremony was open to everyone. A girdle was also tied in
a ceremony to girls.
Many texts proclaim that one’s nature alone, and not birth, determines to
which varna one belongs to. In the famous dialogue between Yudhishthira and
Yaksha in the Mahabharata, Yudhishthira is asked whether a person is a
brahmin based on “birth, learning, or conduct” and his answer is that only
“conduct” makes a person a brahmin and not birth. In the ancient Aryan
society the varnas were functional groupings and not closed endogamous birthdescent
groups. 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. The Chinese scholar Hsuan Tsang in the seventh century was not
aware of it. As a response to historical events one might then credit the
emergence of the modern jati system to the next fundamental change in the
Indian polity that occurred with the invasions of the Turks.
The term caste has no synonym in any Indian language. People who speak of the
“caste problem” in ancient India are projecting modern notions into the past.
The term caste conflated two distinct terms jati, which means a large kincommunity
or descent-group, and varna, which implies a classification based
on function. The dynamics between the jatis has been influenced a great deal
by historical and political factors. During the periods of economic growth,
the jatis have been relatively open-ended; during periods of hardships the
jatis have tended to draw in for the sake of survival. The word caste comes
from the Portugese casta, a word that was meant to describe the jati system,
but slowly it has come to have a much broader connotation.
The term jati is like the modern ethnic group and varna may be compared to
class, although it is primarily a psychological category. If one cannot get
rid of one’s ethnicity, how can one get rid of one’s jati? And why should one
even wish to do that? Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador to India about 2,300
years ago, noted the existence of seven classes, namely that of philosophers,
peasants, herdsmen, craftsmen and traders, soldiers, government officials and
councilors. These classes were apparently jatis.
The fact that jatis have renegotiated their position in the regional power
structure is clear from the example of the Saurashtra community of of weavers
of Madurai that used be considered Vaishya several centuries ago but now is
accepted as Brahmin.
In its long history India has had diverse social and religious currents. It
is only in the exception that the reality has conformed to the theory of the
conservative Dharma Shastras. The Vaishnavas emphatically define varna based
on one’s actions. This is repeated by the Bhagavad Gita and the Bhagavata
Purana.
It is true that jatis pay lip service to the Brahmin as an intermediary to
the gods when it comes to ritual in major temples. But occasions for such
ritual are rare for most people. In smaller temples, the priest can belong to
any jati. In reality, each jati considers itself to be the highest. Even
those who are at the bottom of the economic and social totem pole remember a
mythical past when they were rulers.
The notion that the Brahmin jati is at the top of a hierarchical structure is
incorrect (Quigley, 1993). If the Brahmins were the highest jati then other
jatis would have no hesitation in giving their daughters to the Brahmins.
But in reality non-Brahmin jatis do not wish to intermarry with the Brahmins.
The Rajputs consider the Brahmins to be other-worldly or plain beggars; the
traders consider the Brahmins to be impractical and poor and indeed in many
parts of the country the Brahmins are amongst the poorest communities; the
commoners consider the Brahmins to have lives that are too austere. 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
image of the other must, by its very nature, be a gross simplification and it
will never conform exactly to reality.
The French sociologist Louis Dumont claims that the castes are separate but
interdependent hereditary groups of occupational specialists. He postulates
that the principle of purity-impurity keeps the segments separate from one
another. In this system each jati closes its boundaries to lower jatis,
refusing them the privileges of intermarriage and other contacts defined to
be polluting. Facts belie the Dumont theory: Indian Muslims and Christians
also have jatis. The eighteenth century German society was divided into
princes, nobles, burghers, peasants and serfs between whom no marriage other
than morganatic was possible. Korea and Japan also had the practice of
untouchability. The Buddhist dogma about non-killing appears to have led to
the ostracization of those people whose trades involved hunting, slaughtering
animals and so on.
One might wonder why the caste system developed in certain parts of India.
It has been argued that European and Western traditions, owing to their
exclusivist nature, set out to obtain uniform belief and practices. The
inclusivist nature of the Indian religions, on the other hand, places each
group in a larger system.
The famed Indian scholar M.N. Srinivas pointed out that the process of
Sanskritization is responsible for movement within the jati system.
Sanskritization implies emulating a dominant caste of any high varna.
One should add that there also exists the dynamic of fragmentation.
The Vedas do not sanction the notion of caste as is understood in recent
times. New technology, science, and political organization are changing the
social institutions of India. Modern Indian castes (jatis) are no more than
the ethnic communities in the West.
To return to the question I posed in the beginning of this note: Do Kashmiri
Hindus have a caste system? The answer is an emphatic no. Kashmiris are
Brahmin in the sense of the Brahma Purana, according to which every human,
being desirous of knowledge, is a Brahmin.
References
S. Kak, “Understanding caste in India,” Mankind Quarterly, vol 34, 117-123,
1993.
S. Kak, India at Century’s End. VOI, New Delhi, 1994.
T.N. Madan, Family and Kinship. OUP, New Delhi, 1965, 1989.
H. Sender, The Kashmiri Pandits. OUP, New Delhi, 1988.
D. Quigley, The Interpretation of Caste. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1993.
SUNDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2010
HAF TRIPPED? GANDHIJI’S “CAST THE CASTE”
Gandhiji and the Caste System in his Village Republic
by
Dr. Vijaya Rajiva
Gandhiji’s ideal village republic which he called the Rama Rajya (the Kingdom of Rama) there would be no distinctions of caste and it would also be a classless society. This much is well known as also his fight against Untouchability (as it was then called).
What most people do not know is that he made a distinction between varna and jatti and he also endorsed jatti as a form of social organization which would be occupation based.He felt that pride in one’s occupation would help in consolidating the individual’s professionalism and expertise. This does not mean that caste (jatti) should be hereditary by compulsion. An individual is free to break free of the caste in which he is born and adopt a different occupation.
Varna as he rightly saw it, was a broad based division of labour into intellectual/spiritual ,political/military, commercial/economic and agricultural. He supported this division of labour as long as it did not end up with discrimination towards any particular division. In other words, it should not be hierarchical.
Needless to say, he did not endorse the colonial attempt to divide Hindu society by granting separate electorates to the Untouchables(the Dalits). And today he would endorse a limited affirmative action on behalf of the scheduled castes and other backward castes. It could not be a program in perpetuity since the idea is to integrate them into the rest of Hindu society, rather than maintain divisions.
Today, this is basically also the philosophy of the Sangh Parivar and it differs from the foreign/Western inspired attempts to distort Hinduism as in the recent attempt to introduce the question of the caste system as a form of racism. Both the Parivar and Gandhiji would argue that this is an unacceptable interference in the domestic and internal workings of the Indian social fabric.
It is for Indians to sort this out for themselves and not be patronized by the West. There are reports that when the Archbishop of Canterbury was in India recently he had the ear of Ms.Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Congress Party and sought her support for the initiative to bring up the question of casteism being a form of racism at the UN. Since the Government of India has not protested at this blatant interference (however well intentioned it may be) in Indian affairs one can only conclude that the Italian Catholic president of the Congress is continuing in the footsteps of British colonials. (Editor’s Note: These words were written by the author long before the HAF report. Has HAF fallen into the hands of such alien elements who have been itching to intrude into internal matters of India?)
There is a legitimate fear on the part of far sighted Hindus that this might be a ploy to further the Christian/Western drive to subjugate peoples whom they once ruled over and are now independent nations. The present writer believes that the zeal of these Western inspired moves will only muddy the waters rather than allow for the natural processes of urbanization and modernization to break down unacceptable barriers.
The word ‘unacceptable’ is used deliberately since the movement of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch regards the organization of Indian society in swadeshi terms, that is, in maintaining some form of jatti (caste) economic organization. This is very similar to the Gandhian village republic, where agriculture is the dominant occupation, but also has handicrafts and small scale industries. Small is beautiful is quite a challenge in contemporary India where the idea of India as propounded by people like Nandan Nilekani speaks in the context of large is beautiful (Imagining India,2009). The predicted rising economic growth of 8% plus is an urban vision which may be sustainable in the short term but will leave large swathes of the population behind.
Economists of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch have written intelligently about the prosperity engendered by the ongoing jatti system (S.Gurumurthy). To generalize this onto the larger Indian economy will be the challenge.
In such a context it is ill advised for well intentioned Westerners to muddy the waters. The Dalits and the OBCs (Other Backward Castes) will not benefit from this interference. It will also generate the suspicion that this is not about humanitarian principles of equality and fraternity but another way of attacking an ancient civilization that has endured for millennia.
Old wine in new bottles.
(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university)
http://www.sookta-sumana.blogspot.com/
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Nagendra S. Rao <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 7:36 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on HAF’s Report: “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste”
To: “Swami Venkataraman, Member, Board of Directors” <swamiDOThafsite.org>
Cc: Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>, kalyan97DOTgmail.com, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>, Ravi Joshi <karigar01DOTgmail.com>, “Dr. Mihir Meghani” <mihirDOThafsite.org>
Swami:
Let me be candid and rather blunt here. Since you chose to copy me on the note to Aditi, I am responding. It smacks of arrogance on your part to think that Aditi should take the time and trouble to copy you on everything. The caste report (sic!) was issued by HAF and Mihir is its President – she wrote to him. Aditi is my protege on sastra and a fellow traveller on the path spiritual. I can tell you that she has many other things to do – there are her professional commitments, her personal sadhana and yes she has a life apart from all that. BTW so do you I am sure.
Your comment is similar to another senior HAF honcho (Board Member?) getting her nose all out of joint that Aditi blew her away when she wanted to discuss Aditi’s rejoinder on the Doniger interview. The top echelon of HAF (including her) seem to have a rather exaggerated idea of your importance and relevance as icons of Hindu Dharma? A number of people have commented on this hubris – very much more so of late. All of ye on the HAF Board famously say that ye share all correspondence – true from the way this seems to have reached you, not that it was meant to be hidden from you, from what I can see. This is all to the good and is a sign of organizational efficiency among your many (some glaring) lacunae.
It is none of my business OR INTEREST, but HAF might be more effective if there was a trifle more humility on your part and trifle less penchant for supercilious, ex-cathedra pronouncements. Further, less reliance on secondary sources in English and diverse swamis (some arriviste) who represent no ancient Sanatana Dharma sampradaya or parampara would also give ye more credibility. Yes tradition matters Swami and as Hindus we do not say ring out the old and ring in the new – the American penchant. Since you claim to be a smartha, why do you say, ‘sadashiva samarambham, Shankaracharya madhyamam, asmad acharya paryantam ityadi’. So far as I see, there is no sign-off from any major traditional sampradaya on your purported magnum opus.
Since ye lay claim to some knowledge of / interest in the sastras, and the Bhagavad Gita is your / Hinduism’s root document or some such inanity, ye might with profit go through BG 13.7-11 et.seq. and see the difference in the attitude with which Sri Kalyanaraman / Aditi / Sri Gautam Sen write versus the way ye in the HAF come across to gray beards like me. Several people – many who do not have your articulateness, knowledge of English or lawyerly ability for sastrartha – that does not make them dummies – have noted and commented on this to me. (BTW, I have not said your missive to Aditi totally lacks clarity or makes no points).
I see supercilious arrogance, superficial analysis, jejuneness of recommendation and absence of dooralochana (farsightedness) permeating every element of the HAF report. The index of maturity (krtopasaka in sadhana terminology) is not only knowing something but also knowing when not to say what one knows – so that one gets real results rather than evanescent encomiums from the ignorant gallery. Again I have not said that (some of) your facts are not correct. With so many people calling me for comment / opinion / feedback I took a little time to go through the report. Ye have a few dozen, (did someone say close to a hundred pages?) of mostly irrelevant and often meaningless sastraic quotations in the report. This may impress the great unwashed amongst mainstream Americans and the ignorant English speaking Hindus in name only divorced from their religio-cultural substrate – see, I can be supercilious and dismissive too. It does not cut any ice with people having some familiarity with the subject. It is like school boy padding of a term paper. There are also pages and pages of utterly irrelevant material on dalit persecution ityadi – again I am not doubting their factual nature. I vaguely recall seeing all this stuff on the internet somewhere else in some dalit website(s) from where there has been wholesale cut and paste? This also is all padding for PR purposes and playing to the gallery. Again please do not insult my intelligence by bothering to deny it. We are all big boys here who have played the same game in our time. In a serious policy document (aspirations of grandeur that your report lays claim to) all this dalit persecution stuff could have gone into an appendix in small type.
Ye have used Swami Dayananda’s name ad nauseam and claim that your report has his imprimatur. FYI I was his student of prastana traya decades ago in an Ashram and knew Swamiji rather well. I have had long conversations with the Acharya Sabha about your report. From what I can see there has been gross misrepresentation on the part of HAF that Swami Dayanandaji has given his imprimatur to the report (plus diverse other swamis of less name recognition or credibility for in-depth scholarship – mere eloquence in English does not count). This is professionally, morally and ethically inexcusable and we / I have done something about this.
Ye have very cleverly implied Dayanandaji’s approval without explicitly stating so in the letter of the law. Please do not bother to deny this – that it was an oversight or some such rubbish. That would be beneath you and an insult to my intelligence as well. Ye are all high IQ types and ye have smart lawyer(s) on the Board. As I said before, we are all big boys here, and I have done the same BUT NEVER IN A DHARMA OR RELIGIOUS CONTEXT. This is not the first time that I have seen HAF involved in such chicanery – my words are carefully chosen. Being a religio-political organization and since we are all out of business school, do you remember the ad for Hebrew National Hot Dogs, “We are held to a higher standard”.
But whatever your position on smritis, I hope you agree with me that moksha shastras are of a higher authority than the smritis?
I have no idea what you mean by this statement (in particular moksha shastra) and I am not about to debate ek sattavada / dvi satta vada/ tri sattavada of Advaitamatha with you. This is not the time or place. More important I have absolutely no interest in such profitless activity. From the ajatavada standpoint there is no dharma / karma / there is not even janma. Since you claim some interest in and knowledge of Advaita Vedanta, please refer to Mandukya Karikas 2.32 and also Amritabindu Upanisad – na nirodho na cha utpatti na baddho na cha sadhaka, na mumuksur vai mukta ityesha parmarthata! There is no death / destruction, no birth / origination, there is none who is bound, there is no sadhaka or spiritual aspirant, there is no seeker of liberation NOR ONE WHO IS LIBERATED, this is the supreme truth. Satyesa satyam – Truth of truths.
When there is no birth and death to start with, what then is all this rubbish about moksha sastras ityadi? Why is HAF getting into all this lather about caste Swami? This is all brainwashing from the West – this arrant drivel that there is no right by birth in Hinduism in the HAF caste magnum opus WHEN HINDUISM (ONE SAMPRADAYA ANYWAY) SAYS THERE IS NO ONE BORN IN THE FIRST PLACE? You claim – claimed sometime in the past anyway that you are a sishya of Kanchi and the late Periaval of Kanchi, Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswati. I know both Sringeri and Kanchi at least as well as you do – and that for at least 40 years. If Kanchi (or Sringeri) agrees with your and HAF ex-cathedra pronouncements, the utter garbage in the HAF report and its egregious arrogance in this matter, I will take off my sacred thread on the spot. The Vivekachudamani says, ‘sabda jalam Maharanyam, citta bramana karanam’ this net of words is like a huge forest leading to stupefaction of the intellect. The Brahma Sutras say, ‘tarkapratisthanadva’ now therefore it cannot be established by logic or reason – please read Samkara bhashya and the diverse tikas on the same.
We can all go on getting hot under the collar and we can all go on quoting sastra until we are blue in the face. Half-baked parroting of sastra solves nothing, ameliorates nothing, profits nothing!!! This type of intellectual masturbation leads nowhere. ‘Naham guru, na tum sishya’, c.f. Mandukya Karikas 1.18. When one does not have the philosophical maturity born of tapobala flowing from anusthana to understand that this is all a game, there is much vyavaharic angst. “All this world is but a stage on which we play a part, c.f. ‘Lokavattu leela kaivalyam from the Brahma Sutras’. You might want to go through the Samkara bhashya. Incapability to understand this is why we all get into all this endless morass.
In closing, neither Kanchi / Sringeri / Udipi authorities nor any of their upamathas would have any interest whatsoever in these HAF clarion calls for reform of Hindu sastras under HAF leadership, and other such pious aspirations, so let us drop indefinitely your interest in meeting their authorities. Neither would Kailash Ashram in Rishikesh, nor most probably the Andavan of Sri Rangam, Nathdwar or any other people who have recognition as authorities on Sanatana Dharma.
Some of the arriviste second and third tier American Swamis / swamis – swaminis in America anxious and willing to establish their own paramparas (sampradayas even?) may find HAF leadership / initiative(s) to be of great moment. More power to you and them – that is how Hinduism nee Sanatana Dharma has evolved and grown over time. Hinduism is nothing if not inclusive and ecumenical – there is nothing cast in adamant. Ironically, if HAF and you had said that ye want to encourage this instead of saying with jejune arrogance that all of Hinduism should be reformed (in the individual and collective / omniscient? wisdom of HAF) I would have appreciated what is utter drivel as positioned.
I am sure local congressmen ityadi in the US and Congress? / the Ivy League educational cabal will give HAF / you pats on the back / awards even? You will be getting rafts of invitations and grants. We are all big boys and girls here and we all know how the system works. Ye have a weather eye open for that I am sure – all pious denials to the contrary. I most certainly would in your place ‘agar ye dharam ki baat na hoti’, if this was not a matter of dharma. As I have repeatedly said please don’t insult your perspicacity or mine.
Enough. I am sure we all have more worthwhile things to do – I most certainly do. Peace. May all good things come to you and yours.
Shambhave Namah!
Nagendra
___________________________________________________________
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 4:10 PM, Swami Venkataraman, Member, Board of Directors <swamiDOThafsite.org> wrote:
Hi Aditi
You could have copied me on this email as a courtesy instead of me getting it through others. I will put it down to you perhaps not having my email address, although Nagendra and Rajiv and all else you quote certainly do have it. I hope you remember that this is the guy you had dinner with in NY a few weeks ago and who spoke of Ramana Maharshi and who wrote a CD of bhajana sampradaya namavali music. Not some monster. I hope to respond in more detail later but a quick note on the most serious issues you raise below.
One
I have enormous respect for your intellect based on all I have seen thus far and I am kind of stumped by your use of a strawman argument to dismiss something that I say:
HAF’s position that everything is Brahman and therefore no birth-based differences exist is extremely shallow and intellectually lazy. Such a position strikes at the very root of the core principles of karma and reincarnation that are foundational to Hinduism.
Have I ever said anywhere in the report that there are no birth-based differences? Have I said anywhere that all people are same (although I have said equal in the sense of before the law)? All that I have said is that if you recognize that there is divinity inherent in everyone, there is no basis for caste-based discrimination, not that everyone becomes the same and that there are no differences. Is that so difficult to understand? You build several pargraphs of your email on this strawman. And this also leads to the second issue.
Two
Lets talk more about the smriti issues later, but whatever your position on smritis, I hope you agree with me that moksha shastras are of a higher authority than the smritis? Maybe you dont and that would indeed be a fundamental difference between us but lets assume that the social organization of varna and jaati are indispensable to Hinduism. Does that mean that the concept of karma is not universal? Because there certainly is no varna or jaati in the U.S. Does karma not work for Americans? Is our dharma limited to India? If you say varna and jaati exist under different professional guilds or whatever in the U.S. those certainly are not birth-based. Some scholars even argue ancient Vedic varna was not birth-based. If birth-based varna and jaati are needed for karma to work, how will the principle be universal?? People are going to be born with different capabilities and tendencies in the US just as they are in India. It MUST be so in both countries if the law of karma is universal. Karma will find a way to operate in any social structure.
To me, moksha shastras are what are “essential” or “intrinsic” to Hinduism. They talk about the relationship between man and God and provide techniques to achieve moksha. No doubt the smritis also provide the numerous daily samskaras that we all follow and which are useful in leading a life conducive to the achievement of moksha. But I fundamentally disagree that a life under the structures of varna and jaati as laid down in the smritis is necessary in order to be able to attain moksha. That said, I am willing to grant your point that our ancestors saw that and devised the varna system to reflect the natural difference in tendencies. HAF’s objection is only to the treatment of that as a birth-based hierarchy rather than just a difference in character and inclination. Adherence to a hierarchy is doubly hypocritical when brahmins enjoy the comforts of modern society in India or the US, give up their ancient life style and insist on a hierrachy and discrimination of others. HAF also objects to the fact that there was considerable illtreatment of “lower” castes over the centuries in the name of this system. In fact, at every point in the report our objection is to caste-based discrimination, not caste itself. For one thing, caste identity is used today to provide affirmative action for the erstwhile discriminated. For another, “caste is also culture” as I say in the report and many marry within the same caste for reasons of compatibility without necessarily implying a discrimination against others.
Read these two examples that Ambedkar gives in a speech. Where does Hindu Dharma enjoin such treatment?
In Poona, the capital of the Peshwa, the untouchable was required to carry, strung from his waist, a broom to sweep away from behind the dust he treaded on lest a Hindu walking on the same should be polluted. The untouchable was also required to carry an earthen pot, hung in his neck wherever he went, for holding his spit lest his spit falling on earth should pollute a Hindu who might unknowingly happen to tread on it. Let me take more recent facts. The tyranny practised by the Hindus upon the Balais, an untouchable community in Central India, will serve my purpose. You will find a report of this in the Times of India of 4th January 1928. The correspondent of the Times of India reported that high caste Hindus, viz. Kalotas, Rajputs and Brahmin, including the Patels and Patwaris of villages of Kanaria, Biclioli-Hafsi, Bicholi-Mardana. and of about 15 other villages in the Indore district (of the Indore State) informed the Balais of their respective villages that if they wished to live among them they must conform to the following rules:
(1) Balais must not wear gold-lace-bordered pugrees.
(2) They must not wear dhotis with coloured or fancy borders.
(3) They must convey intimation of the death of any Hindu to relatives of the deceased–no matter how far away these relatives may be living.
(4) In all Hindu marriages, Balais must play music before the processions and during the marriage.
(5) Balai women must not wear gold or silver ornaments they must not wear fancy gowns or jackets.
(6) Balai women must attend all cases of confinement of Hindu women.
(7) Balais must render services without demanding remuneration and must accept whatever a Hindu is pleased to give.
(8) If the Balais do not agree to abide by these terms they must clear out of the villages. The Balais refused to comply; and the Hindu element proceeded against them. Balais were not allowed to get water from the village wells; they were not allowed to let go their cattle to graze. Balais were prohibited from passing through land owned by a Hindu, so that if the field of a Balai was surrounded by fields owned by Hindu, the Balai could have no access to his own field. The Hindu also let their cattle graze down the fields of Balais. The Balais submitted petitions to the Darbar against these persecutions; but as they could get no timely relief, and the oppression continued, hundreds of Batais with their wives and children were obliged to abandon their homes in which their ancestors lived for generations and to migrate to adjoining States, viz. to villages in Dhar, Dewas, Bagli, Bhopal, Gwalior and other States. What happened to them in their new homes may for the present be left out of our consideration. The incident at Kavitha in Gtijarat happened only last year. The Hindus of Kavitha ordered the untouchables not to insist upon sending their children to the common village school maintained by Government. What sufferings the untouchables of Kavitha had to undergo for daring to exercise a civic right against the wishes of the Hindus is too well known to need detailed description. Another instance occurred in the village of Zanu in the Ahmedabad district of Gujarat. In November 1935 some untouchable women of well-to-do families started fetching water in metal pots. The Hindus looked upon the use of metal pots by untouchables as an affront to their dignity and assaulted the untouchable women for their impudence. A most recent event is reported from the village Chakwara in Jaipur State. It seems from the reports that have appeared in the newspapers that an untouchable of Chakwara who had returned from a pilgrimage had arranged to give a dinner to his fellow untouchables of the village as an act of religious piety. The host desired to treat the guests to a sumptuous meal and the items served included ghee (butter) also. But while the assembly of untouchables was engaged in partaking of the food, the Hindus in their hundreds, armed with lathis, rushed to the scene, despoiled the food and belaboured the untouchables who left the food they were served with and ran away for their lives. And why was this murderous assault committed on defenceless untouchables? The reason given is that the untouchable host was impudent enough to serve ghee and his untouchable guests were foolish enough to taste it. Ghee is undoubtedly a luxury for the rich. But no one would think that consumption of ghee was a mark of high social status. The Hindus of Chakwara thought otherwise and in righteous indignation avenged themselves for the wrong done to them by the untouchables, who insulted them by treating ghee as an item of their food, which they ought to have known could not be theirs, consistently with the dignity of the Hindus. This means that an untouchable must not use ghee even if he can afford to buy it, since it is an act of arrogance towards the Hindus. This happened on or about the 1st of April 1936.
Three
Which brings us to the last issue I want to discuss here, another silly strawman that you raise, namely that of excising parts of the Manusmriti. The Manusmriti is what it is. No one can remove or add one verse to it. But it is my, and HAF’s, opinion that we need not follow all rules of jaati or varna in today’s world. First, to think one can do so is to live in a fool’s paradise. Second, to want to do so while exempting oneself of all the duties it poses on one (which is what MOST if not all the “internet brahmins” are effectively asking for today) is shamefully duplicitous. Third, to even be silent to caste-based discrimination (forget today’s politics driven issues, I am talking of earlier centuries like the examples quoted above) is so morally unconscionable that I cant begin to fathom what sort of Hindu is he/she that countenances that. Finally, you can say that the ancients intended for the system to be free of discrimination and just reflect difference. There are still issues here. Is it not discrimination to require the son of an untouchable to be one? or to say the son of a farmer cannot become a businessman? Is it not wiser to allow people to choose because if their inclination is indeed different does it not effectively reflect that their karma is pointing in a different way? If you say that this is what the ancients intended but that the system degenerated, is it not our responsibility as the Hindu samaj to change that? Are smritis not bound by time, place and circumstance unlike the moksha shastras? So is it wrong to envisage that newer smritis can arise, as they actually have in history if the dates ascribed to various smriti texts are right? And in the modern world, if as a society Hindus cannot ensure that we go back to an ancient ideal world of non-discriminatory varna and jaati, is it not our duty to atleast say certain verses should not be put into practice? Dont you agree that even in history different smritis held sway at different points in time or in different parts of bharatavarsha?
I will stop here. I am afraid I dont have the time and energy to engage in multiple back and forths and I am sure that if I took more time, I could express the above ideas more succinctly and clearly than above. This was just a stream of consciousness typing. I dont doubt your sincerity and dedication to the dharma at all. I just hope you will give me the same consideration. By the way, the latest doing the rounds is that Mihir, Aseem, Suhag and Sheetal are known and trusted “Hindu warriors”. That I am the unknown here and hence must be a mole planted by Christian Missionaries to destroy HAF 
with warm regards
Swami
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 3:27 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on HAF’s Report: “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste”
To: “Swami Venkataraman, Member, Board of Directors” <swamiDOThafsite.org>
Cc: Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>, kalyan97DOTgmail.com, Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>, “Nagendra S. Rao (Google)” <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>
Dear Swaminathan, since you cc’ed me, my 2 ruppee worth of input: The complaint in Aditi’s letter (as I saw it), or at least a large part of it, has to do with (1) whether you will really help india based harijans by making a theatrical sensation in washington, and (2) whether you have a high chance of causing harm in washington given the nature of the folks there.
rm
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 4:47 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on HAF’s Report: “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste”
To: “Swami Venkataraman, Member, Board of Directors” <swamiDOThafsite.org>
Cc: kalyan97DOTgmail.com, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com>, Gautam Sen <gautam.senDOTgmail.com>, Ram Sidhaye <indicyogaDOTgmail.com>, “Nagendra S. Rao (Google)” <nagendrasraoDOTgmail.com>, “Mihir Meghani (HAF)” <mihirDOThafsite.org>
Swami,
I have certainly not forgotten you or my personal interactions with Mihir, Suhag, Aseem, Pawan, Ramesh and whoever else may be affiliated with HAF nowadays. The note was addressed to Mihir, because as far as HAF is concerned, the buck stops with him, and this issue is about HAF as a whole and not just this one report. I assumed that the note would make its way to you quickly enough, and I see that it did.
I do not think you are a monster and I do not necessarily attribute bad intentions to any of you—but when you are operating in the political realm and issuing public statements about Hinduism, I do hold you accountable for your statements, notwithstanding how nice of a person you may be. Your devotion to Ramana Maharishi or to bhajans, etc., is irrelevant. The arguments are not about your sincerity but about the report’s substance.
I categorically will not engage with you or anyone else in a philosophical or doctrinal debate on the position of caste in Hinduism. I have neither the scriptural grounding nor the spiritual development to take positions on such matters, nor do I have any interest in doing so. I was not the one who presumed to adopt an official position on the place of caste in Hinduism.
However, when YOU as HAF take an official public position on such a matter, I absolutely have the right and authority as a Hindu to point out the fallacies and flaws in your position and your reasoning, as I happen to see them.
Accordingly, the issue here is not what *I* think about caste but about what YOU have publicly stated in the report as your official position on caste and all of the implications that follow from that. I am not seeking sanction in Hindu scriptures for caste-based discrimination; I am saying that you have not coherently articulated, reasoned or provided adequate support for YOUR position that birth-based hierarchy (whatever that means) is not present in Hindu scriptures (although you in other places argue that it is present in certain Hindu scriptures and therefore such scriptures should be rejected) for the reasons set forth in my prior email. Since you have called upon Hindus to reject their own scriptures where they promote birth-based hierarchy, it is your job to define what you mean by birth-based hierarchy and whether you are also thereby asking Hindus to reject portions of the Vedas that by your own report’s analysis contain mention of caste. It is incumbent upon YOU to define what you mean by birth-based hierarchy and how that is different from birth-based differences. It is incumbent upon you to clarify for Hindus which scriptures you expect them to reject and what form that rejection is to take. To the extent there is ambiguity in the report, it is your job to clarify it.
You accuse me of making a straw man argument about the Manu Smriti. But YOU are the ones who in the report called for the rejection (your word) of any portions of the scriptures that promote birth-based hierarchy (again, a term you have failed to define in any coherent way), and you have frequently referred to the Manu Smriti as being one of the texts that promotes birth-based hierarchy, etc. So, you have to explain what it means to “reject” a text if not to say that it is effectively excised from Hinduism. If you say that all that you mean by it is that the text should not be literally followed, please tell me what Hindu institution is trying to impose the literal words of Manu Smriti anywhere in the world? Elsewhere in the report you have said that the Manu Smriti has been generally ignored and is not relevant to the practice of Hinduism by Hindus. So, again, there is no coherent position—what is the relevance of “rejecting” the application of a text that no one is following? It seems to me that YOU have built the straw man of Manu Smriti to make yourselves look progressive in opposing its literal application when NO ONE is calling for the literal application of Manu Smriti today.
When you take a position and prosecute it in the court of public opinion (as you have done with this report), the only burden of critics is to point out the flaws in your argument—they do not have to offer their own official positions. And among the most infernal things that you have done by issuing this report is forcing others to have to take artificial positions on some nebulous theological / doctrinal caste debate that you have framed just to engage you on the issues.
Finally, I do not hold that any of the Smritis or Agamas are inconsistent with the Vedas (which I suppose is what you refer to as moksha shastras), so the question of which one overrides does not come up for me. They are all manifestations of divine wisdom for me. When there are questions of interpreting texts, there is no single overriding methodology for choosing one shloka over another or one text over another; these matters are in the province of individual sampradayas and paramparas. The application of the scriptures or of any Hindu teaching is determined on the basis of desha and kala and upon the individual. It is to be determined by one’s guru or acharya on a case-by-case basis. It is not a game of legal construction or methodology. That is why Hinduism is not an organized religion with one-size-fits-all types of commandments or rules.
This is the last I will say on the matter. When you, as part of HAF’s official position, demanded Hindus reject portions of their own scriptures, you crossed a line. You did not simply ask Hindus to stop practicing untouchability or to not practice discrimination (which I do not object to)–you explicitly asked Hindus to reject portions of Hindu scriptures. That is where you crossed the line. I again ask you / HAF to withdraw the report and reissue it after revision (in collaboration with others) to address this and other conerns. But if you refuse to do so and if you persist in taking this position, it does not matter how nice of a person you are or how good your intentions are—it is an attack on Hinduism and deserves to be treated as such.
Sincerely,
Aditi
The Caste System and Pluralism
M. Lal Goel (Dec. 21, 2010)
Professor Emeritus of Political Science, University of West Florida
www.uwfDOT/lgoel; lgoelDOTuwfDOT
Introduction
Caste is India’s badge. When we think of Hindu India, we think of caste. Caste has become the subject of national shame. Yet, India’s caste system preserves and values social and cultural diversity. The positive attributes of the caste system are highlighted here. My description in second half of this essay is based on life as I saw it in rural Punjab.
Nicholas Dirks tells us that caste is not the basic expression of the Indian tradition. Rather, caste is a modern phenomenon. It is “the product of an historical encounter between India and the British colonial rule.” (See Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India, Princeton University Press, 2001, P. 5). In pre-colonial society, Indians had multiple identities, consisting of temple communities, village communities, lineage and family groups, occupational guilds and devotional societies. Caste identification was one among the several social groupings. Under the British, caste became a single term to categorize and systematize complex Indian reality.
European travelers in the 16th and 17th centuries noted caste only in passing. They did not emphasize its importance in understanding Hindu society. Alexander Dow of the East India Company published The History of Hindustan in 1768. He devotes only 1 page to caste. Caste did not strike early European writers as something peculiar to India. They knew it in their own countries and saw it that way. J. S. Mill in his essays on Political Economy said that occupational groups in Europe were “almost equivalent to an hereditary distinction of caste”.[i]
Abbe Dubois, a French missionary, was one of the most influential European travelers. He learned Tamil and lived among ordinary people. Dubois had difficulty in converting Hindus to Christianity. He attributed this difficulty to the Hindu caste prejudices. Hindus are addicted to their superstitions and prejudices born of caste affiliation. Nobody can change them. His book Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies (1816) became the official gospel of the East India Company. Christian missionaries in general were frustrated in getting Hindus to convert to Christianity. All the abuse was heaped on the institution of caste and on crafty Brahmins who kept the masses duped. After the 1857 rebellion, the British discouraged missionary activity. They feared that interference with peoples’ religious customs would foment rebellion.
Muslim Rule
Caste became rigid during extended foreign rule, especially under Muslim rule (1201-1707). A number of the caste groups that fought against Muslim tyranny were pushed to the outer edges of the social system. I have been told that among the sweeper untouchable castes in India, one finds many Rajput gotras, clan names. Writes Ram Swarup:
With the advent of Islam the Hindu society came under great pressure; it faced the problem of survival. When the political power failed, castes took over; they became defence shields and provided resistance passive and active. But in the process, the system also acquired undesirable traits like untouchability. Alberuni who came along with Mahmud Ghaznavi mentions the four castes but no untouchability. He reports that “much, however, as these classes differ from each other, they live together in the same towns and villages, mixed together in the same houses and lodgings.”
. . .during the Muslim period, many Rajputs were degraded and they became scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. Many of them still retain the Rajput gotra . . .
The same is true of bhangis (sweepers). William Crooke of Bengal Civil Service tells us that the “rise of the present Bhangi caste seems from the names applied to the castes and its subdivisions, to date from the early period of Mohammedan rule”. Old Hindu literature mentions no bhangis of present function. In traditional Hindu rural society, he was a corn-measurer, a village policeman, a custodian of village boundaries. But scavenging came along with the Muslim and British rule. Their numbers also multiplied. According to 1901 Census, the bhangis were most numerous in the Punjab and the United Provinces which were the heartland of Muslim domination.[ii]
Ancient India had castes, but not casteism, the politicization of caste. Casteism is rampant in India today. “In its present form, casteism is a construct of colonial period, a product of imperial policies and colonial scholarship. It was strengthened by the breast-beating of our own ‘reformers.’ Today, it has acquired its own momentum and vested interests.”[iii]
CASTE WITHIN CHRISTIANS AND MUSLIMS
Christians and Muslims in India do not escape caste divisions. Both communities are divided into a number of subgroups, similar to caste groups. Christians include Syrian Christians, Catholics, Protestants, Goan Christians, Adivasi Christians and are also divided by state and region. A Tamil Christian may have little in common with his compatriot in neighboring Kannada, much less in far away Delhi or Calcutta. Muslims are even more divided: Sunnis, Shias, Bohras, Khojas, Ismailies, Ahmediyas,Wahabis and so on. Christian and Muslim subgroups practice endogamy—Bohras marry among Bohras and Catholics among Catholics. Admittedly, these practices are being eroded under urban and modern influences. The following is taken from Imtiaz Ahmed’s book, Caste and Social Stratification among Muslims in India, South Asian Books, 1978, p. 142:
While there can be little doubt that the Koran recommends the egalitarian principle, actual practice among Muslim communities in different parts of the world falls short of the Koranic ideal. Particularly in India and Pakistan the Muslim society is clearly stratified. First, there is a line which divides the Ashraf from the Ajlaf: the former are high and the latter low. The Ashraf are further divided into four ranked subgroups: Sayyad, Sheikh, Mughal and Pathan. Some would regard Muslim Rajputs as a fifth subgroup of the Ashraf. The Ajlaf are similarly sub-divided into a much larger number of groups. All these groups, the Ashraf and the Ajlaf, are endogamous. Furthermore, they are hierarchically arranged in relation to one another, the Sayyads occupying the highest and the Sweepers the lowest position.
The Ashraf-Ajlaf distinction is not limited to India or Pakistan. One of my Moroccan Muslim students proudly told me once that he was an Ashraf and that other Moroccan students at the campus were not. In Iran only Arab descent qualifies one to hold high Vilayat-e-Faqih religious office. Only Arab descent from the Prophet Muhammad’s Hashemite tribe qualifies one to wear the black turban. Other Iranian clergy wear white.
Ethnic Specialization. Ethnic specialization by occupation is not unique to India. It is common around the world. The Lou tribesmen of Kenya, who live next to Lake Victoria, are fish merchants. Because of their reputation and skills, the Lou control the fish trading business in countries of East Africa, as far away as Mombasa. Even in the global business center of New York City, there are ethnic concentrations by occupation. Hasidic Jews control the diamond trade in Manhattan. The Vietnamese immigrants control and run most of the “nail salons,” and Koreans run the convenience stores. Because some occupations are more lucrative than others (diamond business for example), ethnic or caste income inequality is inherent.
Even Untouchability is not peculiar to Hindu India. It existed elsewhere. The Packchong in Korea, Eta or Buraku in Japan, and Ragyappa in Tibet all had in common the fact that these groups performed work that was considered polluting and impure. The work consisted usually of animal slaughter, tanning of animal hides and scavenging. These groups married within their own group (endogamy). The Eta in Japan lived separately from the rest of society. Their work was associated with “death, dirt and blood,” considered morally impure and unclean.[iv] Gypsies or the Roma people may be considered European untouchables.
Just because untouchability existed in several countries does not excuse the disability associated with it.
GROWING UP IN RURAL PUNJAB
I grew up in rural Punjab (Ladda village in Sangrur District) in 1950s. My village contained some one dozen different Hindu and Sikh jatis or caste groups. Population count was taken by the number of family units, not individuals. Of the total 300 families in 1950, the approximate caste breakdown was as follows: Jat farmers 180, Baniya merchants 20, Brahmins 20, the service castes (blacksmith, barber, carpenter, oil pressure, etc) 30, and two untouchable groups of Chamars and Churahs (leather workers and sweepers) 25 each. Some 20 Muslim families of potters and weavers left the village in 1947 to migrate to Pakistan or to majority Muslim towns within India. Each caste was traditionally associated with a particular occupation. But all did not pursue it. None of the Brahmin families pursued the traditional priest-craft; some did farming, others did retailing or labor. The untouchables did share cropping. For each jati, the marriage circle consisted of some 40-50 villages spread within a radius of about 50 miles. This was 60 years ago. With the availability of modern transportation and communication, the marriage circle now encompasses a wider area.
The village consisted of four contiguous sections or neighborhoods, called behras. The untouchables occupied one of the four neighborhoods. All other castes were mingled in the remaining three sections. Untouchable separateness was not strictly adhered to. Members of the higher castes bought properties adjoining the untouchable quarter. The primary school I attended was located in the untouchable section of the village and nobody thought much about it. With the exception of the untouchables, all other caste groups were intermingled. They shared each other’s food and water. They attended each other’s weddings and special ceremonies. Even though food and water was not shared with the untouchable, they were an integral part of the village social and economic fabric.
My Vaishya family’s three immediate neighbors were a Brahmin, a Tailor and a Jat farmer. The barely literate Brahmin neighbor pursued subsistence farming rather than the traditional priest-craft. No taboo about sharing food held sway. As a child I accepted water and food at the tailor’s home (technically a lower caste Shudra) and nobody in my family told me otherwise. Nobody in the village identified the tailor as a shudra. Only after reading books on caste did I know that the tailor belonged to the lower shudra caste.
The descriptions of caste system popular especially in the West are based more on certain ancient law books (for example, Manusmriti, the laws of Manu) than on ground reality. Even sixty years ago in 1950, hereditary occupation was not much followed. The principle of pollution and purity did not strictly hold sway. The status difference among different groups was minimal. Only the practice of endogamy remained. And, things have dramatically changed since my childhood.
Village identification was more important than caste or religious identification. When I left India in 1956 to travel to the United States for study, the entire village walked two miles to the railway station to send me off with their blessings. Many had teary eyes. When I returned three years later, a similar reception waited for me at the village gate. My emotional tie to the village is stronger than to my caste or religion. Even though I left the village some 50 years ago, I make periodic pilgrimages there.
Mine was a peaceful village, like all other villages in the vicinity that I knew. Inter-caste tensions were rare. Textbook accounts of inter-caste conflict are exaggerated or untrue. There was small scale thievery but little serious or violent crime. There were no accounts of girls being raped in the remembered history of the village. All lived in similar housing, one or two room clay-brick houses with front courtyards where animals might be tethered and cooking and washing were done. Their possessions were few in number. Milk and honey did not flow, contrary to idealized versions of Punjabi rural life. But all managed a healthful organic diet. There was the close-knit family and the larger village community that gave one the sense of belonging. Fairs, festivals and wedding feasts provided entertainment and gaiety. We lived reasonably contented lives.
In post-Independence India, caste has been politicized and arenas of conflict have increased. Political parties now accentuate caste and religious divisions in order to garner votes.
Economic Disparity: The Untouchables were somewhat poorer than the rest in the village, but not by much. All were poor. There was no correlation between upper caste and economic standing. Theoretically, Brahmins were supposed to occupy the top rank; in reality, they received no elevated status, economically or in prestige. Jat farmers and Baniya merchants earned better than other jatis including Brahmins, individual cases excepted. With land values skyrocketing in the recent decades, the gap between Jat and non-Jat is even sharper. As 95 percent were illiterate, educational gaps were minimal. One of my fond memories as a young student was to read and compose letters for the villagers. Letters were exchanged only on special occasions–to announce births, deaths, and marriages. Even though most adults were unlettered, they were not un-smart, unwise or ignorant. With all my education, I would not want to match my wits with them.
The untouchables were fully integrated into the economic and social life of the village. All worked together on the farm and all bought and sold from one and another. The embroidered brocade shoes I wore at my wedding were made by the highly respected village cobbler, an untouchable by caste and a friend of my father. I still own the flat-soled brocade pair. My village was typical of the ground reality in rural Punjab as I saw it. The village had not changed much in several centuries. Major social and economic changes occurred in the subsequent decades. In a 2010 visit to my native village, I was informed that Jat farmers and untouchables not only worked side by side on the farm but also now shared water, tea and food.
NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE ASPECTS OF CASTE
Caste has too long been the bane of Indian society. Negative aspects of the caste based hierarchy in status and economic differences have received much scholarly attention. Where these exist, they must go. Caste based discrimination where it remains must end. But the positive aspects of the caste system need to be recognized. Caste based society is a tolerant society. It celebrates our cultural differences. Different castes practice their own customs in marriage, worship, food and manner of living. Minorities, whether religious, racial, language or ethnic, retain their cultural distinctiveness within the larger Hindu system.
The caste-based system is a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic tolerant social system. In contrast, societies that emphasize universalism (one set of laws and customs for all) often use force and coercion to achieve oneness. Note the following negative consequences of universalism.
· Stalin liquidated 30 to 40 million Russians in order to create a classless egalitarian communist society in the Soviet Union. The same goes for Maoist China.
· The Islamic conquest of the Middle East resulted in the exile and murder of non-Muslims. Before the advent of Islam, the Middle Eastern countries were religiously and ethnically diverse. Jews, Christians, and Pagans lived side by side in equal status.[v]
· During the Church sanctioned Inquisition that lasted several hundred years in Europe, especially in Spain and Portugal, dissenters were tortured, liquidated or exiled. Inquisition reached as far as Goa on the Indian coast.[vi]
With emphasis on pluralism and cultural diversity, India escaped such blood baths. Hindu India illustrates its commitment to diversity in history. Before Christianity became established in the West, it entered India with St. Thomas in the first century A.D. (more likely in the 4th century, see the footnote).[vii] Judaism came to India after the Jewish temple was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. and the Jews were expelled from their homeland. Both Christians and Jews have flourished in a predominant Hindu India for centuries. In a recent book titled Who Are the Jews of India? (University of California Press, 2000), author Nathan Katz observes that India is the only country where the Jews were not persecuted: “The Indian chapter is one of the happiest of the Jewish Diaspora.” p. 4. Also see the Emily Wax article in Washington Post at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-yn/content/article/2007/08/26/AR2007082601112.html
Zoroastrians known in India as Parsees (or Parsis) entered India to flee Islamic conquest of Persia (present Iran) in the 7th and 8th centuries. The Parsees are an affluent community in the city of Bombay without a sense of having been persecuted. The Parsee Tata family controls a huge industrial empire. Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the powerful Prime Minister of India, was married to Feroze Gandhi, a Parsee (no relation to Mahatma Gandhi). Tibetan Buddhists and Bangladeshi refugees are new entrants into India. Like the Jews and the Parsees before them, they add to the caste diversity in India.
Here is a telling historical fact: Jews also reached China after the destruction of the Jewish Temple in the first century. As in India, Jews were not persecuted in China. But they disappeared in China through intermarriage and assimilation. But Jews survived in India because their distinctiveness received societal approval.[viii] India not only welcomed the oppressed groups, it allowed them to maintain their distinct cultural identity. Koenraad Elst observes:
It is one thing to say that Hindu society has received the persecuted Jewish, Syrian Christian and Parsi communities well, but another to devise a system that allowed them to retain their identity and yet integrate into Hindu society. [ix]
AMERICAN ETHNIC PLURALISM
With increase in immigration, the United States is becoming ethnically diverse and culturally and religiously pluralistic. It begins to resemble India. The American “melting-pot” is somewhat of a myth. The melting pot theory combines people of different cultures and religions to yield a final product of uniform consistency and flavor. The new mix is quite different from the original parts; hence the “Melting Pot”. This idea differs from other analogies, particularly the salad bowl analogy. The ingredients retain their cultural identities, thus retaining their integrity and flavor as in a salad bowl. The salad bowl analogy is more widely accepted as a description of American ethnic landscape. A pecking order in social status also existed historically: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant or the WASP at the top, then Catholics (Irish, Italian, Polish, Spanish, etc.), then Jews and then Blacks at the bottom. President Kennedy broke the Catholic barrier in 1960, as Obama broke the Black barrier in 2008.
I spent six years as a graduate student in Buffalo, NY (1963-69). Buffalo was a multi-ethnic city, similar to other large industrial cities in the North. Different nationality groups concentrated in different parts of the city. Buffalo was first settled primarily by New Englanders, mostly English. Germans were the first wave of European immigrants. Then starting in the middle of 1800s came the Irish to escape famine, then the Italians, the Polish, the Greeks and a smaller number of Russian and East European Jews. Polish Americans occupied the East Side, while Italian Americans concentrated in the West Side. The South Buffalo and the neighborhood called “the First Ward” were inhabited primarily by the Irish, as the Kaisertown was by persons of German descent. The East Side is now a predominantly African American neighborhood. The West Side is now home to the city’s new Hispanic community, predominantly of Puerto Rican descent.
The definition of who is “White” has changed over time in America. The book, How the Irish became White by Noel Ignatiev, 1995, describes the struggle the Irish had to mount to join “White” labor unions and clubs. It was only towards the end of the 19th century that the Irish became White. A similar struggle defined the experience of Italians, Greeks, Polish and the Slavic people. The Jews did not make into the White club till the middle of the 20th century. See “How Jews became White Folks and What that says about America” by Karen Bodkin, 1998. See also Rajiv Malhotra on “Whiteness Studies” at: http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2007/04/whiteness-studies-and-implications-for-indian-american.htm
The recent immigration is fueled by Asians and the Hispanics. The Asian community includes many distinct nationality groups: Chinese, Indian, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese and others. The new immigrant communities keep their cultural and religious identity. The Hispanics are also divided by the country of origin, although to a lesser extent than the Asians. They marry overwhelmingly within their own community. Certain older minority communities such as the Mormons, the Amish, the Jews and the Blacks also marry predominantly within their own kind. Native Americans now assert their cultural distinctiveness. All this adds to the multi-cultural, diverse American landscape.
Science and technology were supposed to eradicate primordial ties. This did not happen. Instead, finding your “roots” became important. Walt Whitman described America as “a nation of nations.” American nationalism is “civic, not ethnic or cultural.” Immigrants do not give up their religion, language, customs, food or music. America now is a multi-ethnic, multi-religious and multi-racial society. More and more it resembles a caste-like society, not in the sense of hierarchy but in the sense that it values and preserves cultural diversity and multiplicity. This is a good thing.
[i] Ram Swarup, “Logic behind perversion of caste,” The Indian Express, 13 September, 1996. Available at:
http://indianrealist.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/what-caste-actually-was-like/ . A must read piece.
[ii] Ram Swarup, Ibid.
[iii] Ram Swarup, Ibid.
[iv] Harold A. Gould, The Hindu Caste System, V. 1, Delhi: Chanakya Publishers, 1987, p 82-83.
[v] See Bat Ye’or: Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2001
[vi] Richard Zimler reports in his book Guardian of the Dawn that the Portuguese Inquisition in Goa was “the most merciless and cruel ever developed. It was a machinery of death.” Over the 250 years (1560 to about 1812), any man, woman or child could be arrested and tortured for simply saying a prayer, wearing a religious symbol or keeping an idol at home. The Portuguese are nostalgic about Goa and think of it as a glorious island, peaceful, multicultural and prosperous. Indians also are not aware of the horrors of the Inquisition in Goa. Visit: http://www.christianaggression.org/item_display.php?id=1126738163&type=articles .
[vii] There are different accounts as to when Christianity came to Kerala. It is now generally agreed that Christianity was not introduced by St Thomas in the first century but by Syrian merchant Thomas Cananeus in the 4th century. See http://folks.co.in/2009/11/st-thomas-in-india-myth-or-truth/
[viii] Most Indian Jews have migrated to Israel for economic reasons, not because of persecution or discrimination.
[ix] Koenraad Elst, Who is a Hindu?, Voice of India, 2001; Ch 1, at: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/wiah/ch1.htm .
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com>
Date: Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Caste matters again: Gautam Sen. HAF should withdraw their report immediately before further damage is done.
To: Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com>
Cc: Vishal Agarwal <vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com>, anujaprshrDOTyahoo.com, hitaya123DOTgmail.com, rakbahDOTgmail.com, raornDOTlongwoodDOT, aseemDOThafsite.org, nit_andDOTyahoo.com, mihirDOThafsite.org, abhayajiDOTgmail.com, mahesh.mehtaDOTgmail.com, jparekhDOTsbcglobal.net, katarianDOTaol.com, nandasDOTearthlink.net, manoharshindeDOTyahoo.com, indicyogaDOTgmail.com, rakesh901omDOTgmail.com, sashiDOTmetint.com, rakesh.bahadurDOTsaic.com, daps2322DOTgmail.com, subashrazdanDOTyahoo.com, indicyogaDOTaol.com, rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com, swamiDOThafsite.org
I am posting all this at https://sites.google.com/site/hindunew/jaati
Kalyan
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Aditi Banerjee <banerjeeaDOTgmail.com> wrote:
Instead of defending the merits of the substance of their report, the HAF report authors are now trying to defame anyone who criticizes their report as being casteist. Apparently, unless we endorse wholesale HAF’s policy position, we are supporters of “caste-based discrimination” and are apologists for untouchability or other such things. When Anuja presented perfectly reasonable objections to the report, no response to the objections was offered; instead Anuja was immediately harassed to state whether or not she believes any caste-based discrimination exists. It is a complete non sequitur. Let us not get baited into these silly traps. No one here needs to defend their credentials as anti-bigots or to provide their own policy statement on caste to HAF.
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 11:36 PM, S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com> wrote:
Vishal, you should also add the great reform work of Narayana Guru. Surely, there are many others.
kalyan
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:04 AM, Vishal Agarwal <vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com> wrote:
Note that Swami Vivekananda himself was of Kayastha Jaati which fought for a Kshatriya Varna status in the lawcourts, but were awarded a Shudra status. So per his jaati-kula parampara, Swami Vivekananda was not eligible for Samnyasa according to our Dharmashastras. I am glad that he violated his jaati and kuladharma, and that the Dharmashastras were flouted so that he could spread his spiritual light in our times.
And if it were not for Shankaradeva, another Kayastha of Assam, Hinduism would not have existed among large communities in N E India. He should have just lived his jaati and kula Dharma of being a scribe, a clerk or some government official.
The Kayasthas have a legacy to stand upon – of being dominant administrators in N India. But many other kulas and jaatis have no such legacy. To insist that they should stick to a non-existent legacy is to drive them away from our Dharma.
Vishal Agarwal
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:59:22 +0530
Subject: Re: Caste matters again: Gautam Sen. HAF should withdraw their report immediately before further damage is done.
From: kalyan97DOTgmail.com
To: vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com
CC: anujaprshrDOTyahoo.com; hitaya123DOTgmail.com; rakbahDOTgmail.com; raornDOTlongwoodDOT; aseemDOThafsite.org; nit_andDOTyahoo.com; mihirDOThafsite.org; abhayajiDOTgmail.com; mahesh.mehtaDOTgmail.com; jparekhDOTsbcglobal.net; katarianDOTaol.com; nandasDOTearthlink.net; manoharshindeDOTyahoo.com; indicyogaDOTgmail.com; rakesh901omDOTgmail.com; sashiDOTmetint.com; rakesh.bahadurDOTsaic.com; daps2322DOTgmail.com; banerjeeaDOTgmail.com; subashrazdanDOTyahoo.com; indicyogaDOTaol.com; rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com; swamiDOThafsite.org
You are right. The phrase Hindu civilization also does not occur in our scriptures. The word ‘hindu’ occurs in the Constitution, Art. 25.
kalyan
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:57 AM, S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com> wrote:
On the same note. Maybe, all these deliberations should be translated into the vernacular and broadcast to every one of over 6 lakh villages, to reach out to everyone in the Hindu samajam since HAF has taken on the task of reform.
Shubha kamaanaayen.
kalyan
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:55 AM, S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97DOTgmail.com> wrote:
So if you want to reach out the Hindu samajam, these reports and these email exchanges are the fora.
I have no problems with scoring brownie points citing Vivekananda’s madhouse reference and pulling it out of context to score a point.
Who knows if there is already another avatar of Vivekananda already here?
Sure, the debate can go on. But, let the HAF report be withdrawn drawing upon the wisdom of that great savant, Vivekanda Swami.
namaskaram.
kalyan
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Vishal Agarwal <vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com> wrote:
It is funny that you should reject that word ‘caste’ which is in common currency, even while being the founder of the HinduCivilization list although the word ‘Hindu’ is not to be found in any ancient scripture! Your aguments are like those of Romila Thapar, who says that Hinduism does not exist because Hindus did not use this term to refer to themselves on any large scale basis till the British inflicted it upon us!
As for discrimination of people belonging to specific jaatis (if you have an allergy for caste), consider the following examples -
1. Jatav bridegrooms are often now allowed to mount a horse in their wedding processions.
2. Many homes even in urban areas in India will not lend tumblers to Bhangis to drink water from them directly.
3. Use of disparaging words like ‘Sheddies’ (for schedule caste) in common colloquial speech. Implying that they have lower IQ because of their ‘jaat’.
4. Requiring special purification ceremonies of Harijans before they enter some prominent Hindu temples (e.g., Nathdwara).
5. Segregation – upper caste coworkers now socializing with lower caste coworkers on a usual basis.
6. Makind condenscending remarks – “He got hired only because of the Govt reservation policy.”
These are some VERY MILD versions of caste abuse. I have seen and heard these things with my own eyes and ears.
If you do not want to admit these problems, then you leave the field open to the 4M company to talk about them and magnify them.
We should thank our stars that the democracy and affirmative actions in India have transferred political power to OBC and SC/ST Hindus. If that had not happened, there would have been large defections from our Dharma to Abrahamic religions. And yet, a lot remains to be done. After all, we all know of someone or the other in India of lower caste who converted to Christianity or neo-Buddhism to avail of benefits. You cannot solely attribute it to monetary greed. The fact of the matter is that your pride in your jaati and kula is not something that they are enamored of.
All of us in this list are Brahmanas or Kshatriyas or Vaishyas. Together, we are just 15% of the Hindu population. Thing again – why are 85% of the Hindus not even participating in this debate? I ask you to talk to them directly – you will be shocked at their perspectives and it will not necessarily be pretty.
Even during the CA controversy, many edit supporters were shocked by the vehemance with which Dalits (whether pseudo or not) attacked us at the State Board Meetings. You cannot just attribute it to Missionary propaganda. Not certainly if you have seen them in action with your own eyes. Go and tell them that they should stick the parampara of their kula and jaati.
Vishal Agarwal
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:24:17 +0530
Subject: Re: Caste matters again: Gautam Sen. HAF should withdraw their report immediately before further damage is done.
From: kalyan97DOTgmail.com
To: vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com
CC: anujaprshrDOTyahoo.com; hitaya123DOTgmail.com; rakbahDOTgmail.com; raornDOTlongwoodDOT; aseemDOThafsite.org; nit_andDOTyahoo.com; mihirDOThafsite.org; abhayajiDOTgmail.com; mahesh.mehtaDOTgmail.com; jparekhDOTsbcglobal.net; katarianDOTaol.com; nandasDOTearthlink.net; manoharshindeDOTyahoo.com; indicyogaDOTgmail.com; rakesh901omDOTgmail.com; sashiDOTmetint.com; rakesh.bahadurDOTsaic.com; daps2322DOTgmail.com; banerjeeaDOTgmail.com; subashrazdanDOTyahoo.com; indicyogaDOTaol.com; rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com; swamiDOThafsite.org
I repeat my question: what is cast-based discrimination?
If there is a debate about sampradaya, does it become caste-based discrimination? It appears everything goes to indulge in hindu-bashing.
Let us not get into a long essay on what promotes conversions. Maybe HAF report also does. Who knows?
namaskaram.
kalyan
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Vishal Agarwal <vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com> wrote:
Dr K,
Caste is a VERY commonly used word in Hinglish and in many other parts of India today. Are you denying that there is no discrimination on the basis of Jaati-Varna today??
Maybe Swami Vivekanand was wrong when he called Kerala a madhouse in the 19th century due to the high-handedness of the Nairs and Namudiris. The results of this is there for all to see. Almost a fifth of Kerala is Christian today. Go, figure.
Vishal Agarwal
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 09:02:24 +0530
Subject: Re: Caste matters again: Gautam Sen. HAF should withdraw their report immediately before further damage is done.
From: kalyan97DOTgmail.com
To: vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com
CC: anujaprshrDOTyahoo.com; hitaya123DOTgmail.com; rakbahDOTgmail.com; raornDOTlongwoodDOT; aseemDOThafsite.org; nit_andDOTyahoo.com; mihirDOThafsite.org; abhayajiDOTgmail.com; mahesh.mehtaDOTgmail.com; jparekhDOTsbcglobal.net; katarianDOTaol.com; nandasDOTearthlink.net; manoharshindeDOTyahoo.com; indicyogaDOTgmail.com; rakesh901omDOTgmail.com; sashiDOTmetint.com; rakesh.bahadurDOTsaic.com; daps2322DOTgmail.com; banerjeeaDOTgmail.com; subashrazdanDOTyahoo.com; indicyogaDOTaol.com; rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com; swamiDOThafsite.org
What is caste-based discrimination? Does anyone in Hindu samajam use this word, ‘caste’ in their vernacular? How is ‘jaati’ [even in its present semantics understood by the user of this word for 'identity'] conflated with ‘sampradaya’?
I am not referring to SC/ST/OBC certificates used to use the regulations of affimative action, quotas or whatever.
kalyanaraman
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Vishal Agarwal <vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com> wrote:
Anuja,
Do you believe that caste-based discrimination exists? I am asking this question because a lot of critics seem to deny that it exists at all or that it exists to any significant extent in India or outside India today.
Here and there, I come across reports about allegations of caste discrimination within the Indian community in UK and to a much lesser extent, even in the US. There is considerable friction between the Ravidassi and Jat Sikhs these days, and the Ravidassia Sikhs, as you may have heard, now created their own granth compiling the writings of Guru Ravidass in the Guru Granth Sahib and from other sources, replacing the the writings of the Sikh Gurus. The last straw leading to this scism was the murder of the Ravidassia Guru in Vienna last year by hardline Akali Sikh assailants. [Nothing to do with HAF report or similar issues as Gautam Sen seems to imply]. Seehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/25/vienna-sikh-preacher-dies_n_207292.html
The mainstream Sikhs have ALWAYS considered as heterodox any Sikh movements that acknowledge Gurus after the Guru Granth – whether is Dera Sacha Sauda, or the Nirankaris, or the Namdharis or the Ravidassias. I still vividly remember the murder of the Nirankari leader in Delhi in 1978 – some children (I called a boy of my age as ‘Sunny’) from their family were my neighborhood friends. My grandfather was shaken up for days as he saw the attacks from a distance.
Thanks for your response in advance.
Vishal Agarwal
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2010 17:28:07 +0000
From:anujaprshrDOTyahoo.com
Subject: Re: Fwd: Caste matters again: Gautam Sen. HAF should withdraw their report immediately before further damage is done.
To:kalyan97DOTgmail.com;hitaya123DOTgmail.com;rakbahDOTgmail.com;raornDOTlongwoodDOT;aseemDOThafsite.org;nit_andDOTyahoo.com;mihirDOThafsite.org;abhayajiDOTgmail.com;mahesh.mehtaDOTgmail.com;jparekhDOTsbcglobal.net;katarianDOTaol.com;nandasDOTearthlink.net;manoharshindeDOTyahoo.com;indicyogaDOTgmail.com;rakesh901omDOTgmail.com;vishalagarwalDOThotmail.com;sashiDOTmetint.com;rakesh.bahadurDOTsaic.com;daps2322DOTgmail.com;banerjeeaDOTgmail.com;indic-exact-sciencesDOTgooglegroups.com;subashrazdanDOTyahoo.com;IndicYogaDOTaol.com;rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com
| Dear Rajiv,
Thank you for your e-mail. Although I am no longer involved with any Hindu organisations in UK or elsewhere, I feel I should respond on the subject of the recently published HAF Caste report.
As a person concerned with the fight against all manners of discrimination (Race, Faith, Gender, Disability & Caste), I have followed development of the ’21st century Caste discourse outside of India’ for several years now. I have written on this subject a few times and appeared on TV twice, to raise awareness within the wider public.
I abhor all forms of discrimination and cannot support “caste discrimination’ where ever it occurs. However, having read the whole of HAF report I do not find it contributes in a constructive fashion to this area of social concern.
Therefore, I would like to reiterate the request that HAF should withdraw their report immediately and apply greater rigour in thier appraoch & research towards this endeavour.
The twokey reasons for my request are - 1) The report fails to define how ‘Caste’ is to be understood. (No epistemological rational given!)The ambivalence created by the conflation of Jati & Varna is highly problematic and critical to the future ‘power play’ within this discourse.
2) The lack of support from key Scholars & Hindu reperesentative organisations also undermines the legitimacy of this report.
Best wishes & Good Luck to all those who are taking this campaign forward.
Anuja. — On Fri, 17/12/10, Rajiv Malhotra <rajivmalhotra2007DOTgmail.com> wrote: Please see the highlighted portions below. ———- Forwarded message ———- Caste matters again: Gautam Sen. HAF should withdraw their report immediately before further damage is done. ———- Forwarded message ———- I am afraid the highly damaging HAF report on Caste must be repudiated Their resignations are the only way in which this damaging report can I also do not think it appropriate at this juncture to engage in any May I enter a further humble plea to India’s Acharyas and Pujya Swamis Namset, Dr. Gautam Sen It is time to counter a half-baked HAF report based on anecdotes and hazy impressions |
——— Forwarded message ———-
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:38 PM
Subject: It is time to counter a half-baked HAF report based on anecdotes and hazy impressions
To:
This report is half-baked and founded on anecdotes and hazy impressions of a few out of touch with reality in India. Caste-based discrimination is NOT a human rights problem. It is a social problem, a relic of the colonial past which is being fought in India on many fora and using constitutional mandates and force of the law. Let not organizations like HAF indulge in self-flagellation to score a browny point with the politico-s in US Congress or appear to play jalra to the evangelists. HAF should stay with advocacy, its forte and not enter into a social essay for which it is ill-equipped.
Social problems will be resolved by Indians and without any help of this sort from HAF or whatever.
kalyan
