Occupying a Constitutional post, Sarma wrote a highly objectionable comment on depressed castes that violates the Constitutional principle of equality. Yet, the mainstream media has no time to seek an explanation from him. It was the public outrage against his anti-Bahujan remarks that compelled him to express a word of apology days after his controversial post.
The BJP leader, and now poster boy of Hindutva, Sarma wrote a Twitter (X) post on December 26. In his post, he shared verse 44 of chapter 18 of The Bhagavad Gita with a comment that “Lord Krishna has himself described the natural duty of Vaishyas and Shudras”.
A Brahmin by caste, Sarma went on to say that the “natural duty” for Shudras was to serve the upper castes. It appears that Sarma selected a particular verse from The Gita to consolidate upper caste dominance within the state by promoting caste-based occupation.
In Sarma’s X post, a Sanskrit verse was written at the top and its Hindi translation was given below. The summary of the Hindi verse is as follows: the natural duty of Vaishyas is agriculture, trade and animal husbandry, while the natural duty of Shudras is to serve Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.
It is condemnable that a person, who has taken an oath of allegiance to Ambedkar’s Constitution, has written such objectionable content on his official account. He has not only hurt the sentiments of millions of Bahujans and violated democratic principles but has also gone against the teachings of Babasaheb Ambedkar.
Throughout his life, Babasaheb Ambedkar was opposed to the “division of labourers” because he thought it resulted in the denial of freedom for the non-Brahmin castes. The critiques of Ambedkarite scholars of the caste system are based on a similar logic that the rigidity of caste-based occupation puts individuals in chains and denies them to pursue the profession of their choice.
Ambedkarite scholars further argue that birth-based division of labour not only kills individual talent but also cripples the progress of the nation. On this question, Ambedkar has differences with Gandhi.
On the question of The Bhagavad Gita, whose verse the Assam Chief Minister Sarma often shares on his social media account, Ambedkar differs from caste Hindu leaders. In his uncompleted work Revolution and Counter-Revolution which he was developing in the 1950s, Ambedkar argued that The Bhagavad Gita and Manudharmashastra were written post-Buddhist period.
In the post-Buddhism period, Brahmanism rose and it launched deadly counter-revolutionary attacks on Buddhism. In that context, The Gita, according to Ambedkar, which appeared similar to the teachings of Buddhism, tried to justify the counter-revolution.
In other words, The Gita and its teachings go against the Dalit-Bahujan currents.
Ambedkar was highly critical of the teaching of The Bhagavad Gita in the following words: “The Bhagvad Gita is not a gospel and it can therefore have no message and it is futile to search for one…the Bhagvad Gita is neither a book of religion nor a book of philosophy…What the Bhagvad Gita does is to defend certain dogmas of religion on philosophical grounds”.
According to Ambedkar, The Bhagvad Gita provides not only “justification for war” but also “comes forward to offer a philosophic defense” of four-fold varna (Chaturvarnya). Besides, Babasaheb said that “The Bhagvad Gita, no doubt, mentions that the Chaturvarnya is created by God and therefore sacrosanct” (Cited in Valerian Rodrigues, ed., The Essential Writings of B.R. Ambedkar, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002, p. 194).
Note, also that Assam Chief Minister and BJP leader Sarma later tried to pacify the public outrage by saying that the problem arose because of “incorrect translation” done by his staff. To escape from taking responsibility, he deleted his Shudra post and wrote on December 28, two days after his original post: “As a routine, I upload one sloka of Bhagavad Gita every morning on my social media handles. To date, I have posted 668 slokas. Recently one of my team members posted a sloka from Chapter 18 verse 44 with an incorrect translation. As soon as I noticed the mistake, I promptly deleted the post. The state of Assam reflects a perfect picture of a casteless society, thanks to the reform movement led by Mahapurush Srimanta Sankardeva. If the deleted post has offended anyone, I sincerely apologize”.
By blaming his staff and incorrect translation, Sarma tried to escape engaging with the Dalit-Bahujan critiques of The Gita. He seems reluctant to accept the fact that the differences and conflicts are not the outcome of the “wrong” translation but the text itself.
Unlike many upper-caste reformist scholars, Ambedkar was courageous and clear: he brought his criticism of The Gita to the public. Other Hindutva leaders, on the other hand, appear to be treading two contradictory paths.
While their core ideology of a hierarchy-based society has brought them attached to texts like Manu Smriti and its kinds, their vote bank politics has compelled them to show their public admiration for Ambedkar, whose life-long struggle was against the laws of Manu Smriti.
Neither Sarma nor any leader of the RSS is willing to accept the fact that the BJP and the RSS have to choose between Ambedkar’s Constitution and Manu Smriti and similar texts justifying caste-based hierarchy.
Eminent Marxist historian Prof R.S. Sharma (Ancient India) has done a pioneering study on the formation of a four-fold varna system in ancient India. He has shown that the post-Vedic society was based on a birth-based hierarchy where Brahmins were placed at the top and the Shudras, the fourth class, were degraded to the bottom. According to him, the Shudras were not only compelled to serve the top of three Varnas i.e., Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas but also demonized as cruel and thieves.
But after Independence, Ambedkar’s point of view was accepted and the idea of equality was made an essential part of the Fundamental Right. Since the 26th of January, 1950 when the Constitution became the supreme law of the land, our country outlawed birth-based privileges as well as any form of discrimination based on caste.
Next, equal opportunity was made a key feature of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution. Simply put, all people become equal and the state is prohibited from formulating any law that could discriminate against its citizens based on caste, gender, sex and region.
The framing of the Indian Constitution, based on secular, democratic and republican values, did away with birth-based hierarchical social rules. It was due to the powerful movements of Dalit-Bahujans, whose activists and philosophers rejected Manu Smriti and other Hindu religious texts and accepted values like equality, liberty and fraternity, one of the main pillars of the Indian Constitution. Ambedkar’s critique of The Bhagavad Gita should be seen in this context.
Soon after the Assam Chief Minister’s Twitter post quoting a verse from The Gita, a large number of people condemned him. Fearing that it may cost him dear in the upcoming elections and alienate a large section of the lower caste voters from the BJP, he was forced to suddenly delete his post.
Next, Sarma tendered an apology and blamed the “incorrect” translation. But it does not appear to be just a human mistake. On several occasions, the Hindutva leaders have spoken against Constitutions and praised “reactionary” social practices.
For example, while Sarma has apologised for his remarks on Shudras, he has never shown such a gesture as far as his anti-Muslim statements are concerned. It appears that he does it deliberately as he is aware of the fact that the success of the BJP in the state as well as outside is based on creating and maintaining a communal division between the non-Muslim Assamese populations and “infiltrator-Bangladeshi” Muslims living in Assam.
Such a communal narrative helps divert the public attention from the heart problem in the state. These include the unequal relationship between the Centre and the state. Other challenges include (a) achieving inclusive development, (b) protecting natural resources from being monopolized by the big corporate players and (c) ensuring the rights of the most vulnerable community of the state including Adivasis.
Worse still, the Adivasis and other backward castes remain largely excluded from the administration and public institutions in Assam. From business to culture, cinema and media, Dalits, Adivasis, Backward castes and Muslims remain largely kept out.
After joining the BJP from the Congress, Sarma further marginalised the already marginalised caste leaders from the BJP. He manoeuvred to succeed Sarbananda Sonewal, an Adivasi, as the fifteenth chief minister of the state. His ascendance in the BJP is due to his ability to exploit the upper caste network. Note that the numerically smaller upper castes are ruling the roost in the state, while the majority including Dalits, OBCs, Adivasi Muslims and women are kept excluded.
To maintain his dominance within the party and hide the failure of his government, Himanta Biswa Sarma is fond of airing anti-Muslim remarks. Such an anti-Muslim strategy protects upper-caste interests and pleases the RSS.
Since Sarma knows these fault lines well, he tries to blame Muslims and the Congress for all the problems. His attack on Nehru-Gandhi’s family is utterly distasteful. Nothing is as nasty as his tirade against Muslims.
A few months back, Sarma went on to blame Muslims for the price rise of vegetables. Around the same time, he gave an interview with NDTV and said that he would not “seek Muslim votes”.
It seems that the Muslims of Assam have become “politically untouchables” to him. His attacks on Muslim homes, identity and cultural and religious institutions including madrasas are getting intensified. Such a communal tone which he often uses is distasteful to democratic values.
Worse still, Sarma, in the recently held electoral campaigns in Chhattisgarh, attacked Mohammad Akbar, the only Congress minister, and said that “the land of Mata Kaushalya will get defiled if Akbar isn’t sent off”. Weeks later, he spit venom in another election rally at Khandwa (Madhya Pradesh) and said “Voting for Congress means encouraging the ‘Babars’ in the country”.
Even a quick analysis of Sarma’s speech would reveal that his narrative is not only anti-Muslim but also against Dalit-Bahujan philosophy.
In a democratic polity, no one is above the law.
But it appears that the BJP leader and the Assam Chief Minister Sarma have so far managed to easily walk away after making highly objectionable statements against the marginalized community. That is why many perceive that if half of the objectionable statements that Sarma has made so far were given by a Muslim leader or a Dalit activist, she/he would have been surely languishing in jail Thus, the citizens of the country are right to ask if Himanta Biswa Sarma is above the law.
The rise of Sarma is an example of the rise of Hindu “nationalism”. It appears that the prejudice against the working classes, mostly Dalits, Adivasis and OBCs, is being intensified under the Hindutva regime.
While Prime Minister Narendra Modi is never tired of playing the OBC card, the fact remains that under his almost 10-year rule, the position of the dominant sections of society has become further consolidated. For example, the educational, religious, cultural and commercial institutions are still monopolized by the upper castes.
The only positive change has been seen in the domain of politics where some OBC leaders have come to power. The rise of the lower castes in politics has created fear among the upper castes.
The Shudra post of BJP leader Sarma, a Brahmin Chief Minister in a Bahujan-dominated Assam, is an expression of the same Brahminical anxieties.
By invoking The Gita, he wants to tell the lower castes that they should never forget their “natural” duty to serve the upper castes. The promotion of The Gita by the state machinery under the Modi Raj should be seen as the ascendance of Brahminical ideology, which is using the ancient text to curb the rise of plebeians in modern times and weaken Ambedkar’s Constitution.
(Dr Abhay Kumar is a Delhi-based journalist. He has taught political sciences at NCWEB Centres of Delhi University.)