On July 19, the single-judge Bench of Justice N Anand Venkatesh of the Madras High Court directed that Hindu prayers be halted at a temple in Salem, after the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of the Archeological Department of Tamil Nadu submitted a report stating that the idol of the deity was that of Buddha.

The petitioners, one P Ranganathan (now deceased) and Buddha Trust (represented by trustee R Selvakumar), had filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for an investigation by the Archeological Survey of India (ASI), that was the fourth respondent in the case, into the identity and antiquity of the idol, and also prayed that the land and temple premises be restored to the Buddha Trust.

In November 2017, the HC had directed the Principal Secretary and Commissioner of the Archeological Department of Tamil Nadu, who was the sixth respondent in the case, to conduct the investigation of the idol and the temple located at Kottai Road in Periyeri Village of Salem District in Tamil Nadu. The ASI survey was to ascertain the veracity of the petitioner’s claims that the temple was originally a Buddhist temple but was slowly turned into a Hindu temple, with devotees offering prayers to an idol that the Buddha Trust claimed was that of Budhha, but Hindu devotees claimed was that of Hindu deity Thalaivetti Muniyappan.

According to the Archeological Department’s report submitted to the HC, “The temple building of Thalaivetti Muniappan is of modern origin. It is built of cement, bricks and concrete. The temple is under the control of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department (HR&CE), Tamil Nadu. Poojas are performed daily here.” An inspection of the idol had been carried out in July 2021 by the team of the Archeological Department, and they concluded, “After inspecting the sculpture and carefully examining the available archaeological and historical evidences at our disposal, the Committee collectively expressed their opinion that the sculpture depicts several mahalakshanas (great traits) of the Buddha.”

Meanwhile, the Additional Government pleader on written instructions received from the Executive Officer submitted that this place has been treated as a Temple of Thalaivetti Muniappan for a considerable period and the people in the locality also used to come to this place for worship. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the HR & CE Department will continue to take control of this place by treating it as a Temple.

However, the HC disagreed and observed, “After having received such a report, it will not be appropriate to permit the HR & CE Department to continue to treat this sculpture as Thalaivetti Muniappan.” The court concluded, “The mistaken identity cannot be allowed to continue after coming to a conclusion that the sculpture is that of Buddha.”

Therefore, the HC ruled, “In view of the same, the original status must be restored and permitting the HR & CE Department, to continue to treat the sculpture as Thalaivetti Muniappan, will not be appropriate and it will go against the very tenets of Buddhism.”

The court further directed the Archeological Department to take control of the property and “also erect a Board inside the property by depicting the sculpture inside the property as Buddha. The general public can also be permitted to visit this place and it shall be ensured that no poojas or other ceremonies are allowed to be performed for the sculpture of Buddha.”

The entire order may be read here: 

Related:

Krishna Janmabhoomi: Daily hearings on maintainability to begin from July 25

Gyanvapi case: SC to wait for Varanasi district court’s decision on suit maintainability

The post TN Archeological Dept. concludes Salem temple idol is of Buddha, Madras HC halts Hindu prayers appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Representational image. Photo Crrdit: Sikh Lionz

This story, first published on Countercurrents.org in 2005, is being republished as it has acquired added relevance in the prevailing political climate.

Recently while travelling on the early morning flight from Mumbai to Ahmedabad, I overheard my co-passenger's request for non vegetarian breakfast being denied by the flight steward on the ground that on Mumbai Ahmedabad route, non vegetarian food is not served. The same got confirmed a few days later when the management of the said airlines publicly stated that since the passengers on this route are manly vegetarians, and in case of some slip on the part of airlines staff if the vegetarian passengers if by mistake is served the non vegetarian food, it will be hurting their religious sentiments.

Similarly during one of the trips to Ahmedabad when sipping tea with one of the young IT professional friend in his rented accommodation, I was aghast to see the landlord barging into the flat and making headway straight to the kitchen, inspecting something and going away. I could not hide my amazement and asked the young friend as to how someone can come and inspect your kitchen utensils, and that too even without the courtesy of asking your permission. He replied that it is more or less a routine practice in the city where the landlords or landladies keep a watch whether the tenant is cooking non vegetarian food.

Also one house hunter in the city of Mumbai was surprised that the real estate agent inquired about his food habits before showing him the flats for sale. He was also told that the particular housing complex where he wanted to buy the house, they had the unwritten (? written) rule that non vegetarians will not be permitted in the housing complex.
By now it has become a routine for one to hear in different workshops and seminars that Muslims are having aggressive mentality because they consume non-vegetarian food.

There is a hidden sentence in this which comes out easily when probed further that the real reason for their having aggressive mentality is that they eat beef. It comes as an addition that since cow is holy for the Hindus, they at the same time are hurting the sentiments of the Hindus.

This trend is picking on from last few years more strongly. One can roughly say that it runs parallel to the rise of communalism and communal violence in society. It has become rooted in stronger fashion, post Babri demolition along with demonisation of Muslims reaching a new high.

Two issues have been deliberately intertwined in the social common sense. One is about non-vegetarian food causing violent tendencies and the second, the eating of beef by Muslims and thereby hurting the sentiments of Hindus. It is very clear that the definition of non-vegetarian food varies from place to place and community to community. Eggs are passé for some vegetarians and strict no for others. Some regard sea food, fish and the like, as vegetarian while for others it is non vegetarian food in all sense of the meaning.

Today world over roughly more than 80-90% of the population is non-vegetarian so to say. While Muslims in India are the object of wrath, apart from other things, also for eating beef, Europeans and Americans do get away easily in this psyche despite having beef as their staple diet. In the countries and people who follow the biggest apostle of non-violence ever, Lord Gautam Buddha, the consumption of non-vegetarian food is no less in quantity.

For that matter there are innumerable communities in India for whom beef has been a part of their food habit, non-vegetarianism being prevalent in most communities. Even amongst those who feel that Muslims are aggressive because of eating non-vegetarian food the prevalence of eating non-vegetarian food is substantial.

A section of community has been discarding non-vegetarian food in a very strong way. Amongst these sections of middle class, traders are taking the wows of vegetarianism. There are political over and undertones also in this 'hate non-vegetarians' thinking. One can go to the extent of saying that vegetarianism is also being used as a social and political weapon to browbeat the minority community. No doubt one has the choice of shifting to vegetarianism with full commitment, but to be intolerant to the non-vegetarian and to label Muslims as having violent personality due to the food habits is a part of political campaign.

Historically speaking, beef was the staple food in Vedic times (Cow is essentially food, Atho Annam Via Gau). DN Jha in his classic book on the ancient Indian food habits shows that it was with the rise of agricultural society that the restriction was brought in on cow sacrifice by Lord Buddha. The primary goal was to preserve the cattle wealth. The ardent follower of Buddhism, Emperor Ashoka, in one of his edicts to the royal kitchen orders that only as many animals and birds be killed as are necessary for the food in the kitchen. This was to put a break on the animal sacrifice which was part of Brahminical rituals.

It was as a reaction to this that Brahminism came up to project cow as mother to show that it also has concern for cattle. One can make an interesting point a la Kancha Ilaiah's 'Buffalo nationalism', as to why only cow was selected to have the exalted place as a mother, why not buffalo? Has the colour politics something to do with this? This needs investigation!

As far as the violent personality and food is concerned, not much scientific literature is available to prove any correlation of food habit with violent tendencies. Violence is a personality trait, in the realm of psychology, which is shaped by familial, social and political circumstances. It also keeps changing according to the situation. A quiet person can take to arms and violence when faced with adverse physical situation. A person with a history of violent behaviour can change to quietist behaviour, without change of food habits, with the change in circumstances.

There are systems of medicine, the traditional one's which classify food according to the Satwik (leading to pure, quiet persona), Tamsik (increasing anger) and Rajsik (royal) but it hasn't been vindicated beyond stray empirical assertions. It is more than understood in the modern system of medicine that the psychological traits have all to do with the circumstances at all the levels, family, social and political. Despite some people holding on to human nature and type of food, it is far from being vindicated by any of the modern scientific studies.

There are groups of people taking to vegetarianism, the vegans, on health grounds, which one can understand. The element of religiosity is not mixed up here. Neither are these people intolerant to the ones who consume non-vegetarian food. The phenomenon being observed amongst the sections influenced by Hindu right operates at the level of religiosity. Vegetarianism here is a part of one's religion so to say.

Being mixed up with religion it becomes associated with emotions and that's where the strong rejection of non-vegetarians in the neighbourhood arises. How this has been turned as one more tool of demonisation of Muslims is a matter of amazement for the writer of these lines. One also feels like complementing the myth-makers and rumour-mongers who have achieved this feat of using the food habits as yet another tool of spreading hate.

Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, the pioneer of Human rights, narrates a story about Mahatma Gandhi's Muslim friend's son visiting his ashram on the day of Bakrid. Gandhi, a strict  vegetarian, ordered non-vegetarian food to be brought to the ashram for his Muslim friend's son as it happened to be associated with his festival. It is another matter that the Muslim boy in deference to the rules of Gandhiji's ashram insisted that he will have no non-vegetarian food in the ashram.

Respecting each others sentiments comes alive in its best form here. One sees similar respect for 'others' sentiments in the will of Emperor Babur who writes to his son Humayun that since Hindus respect cows he should not let the cows be slaughtered during his reign.

What a contrast to the present atmosphere where vegetarianism is being propagated and imposed in such an aggressive way. One is not sure whether non-vegetarian food leads to aggressive tendencies or rather one can say violence is in the mind and mind is shaped by social situations. One can certainly say that those propagating vegetarianism in such a fashion are intolerant to the hilt, and that's for sure.

One would like to be informed, if Narendra Modi who presided over one of the worst carnages of present times, is a vegetarian or a non-vegetarian. This writer will wait for the answer! Forget Modi, one suspects that Hitler who unleashed the biggest ever pogroms in history of modern times was an ascetic and a vegetarian.
 

The post The Day of the Violent Vegetarian and the Myth of the Militant Meat Eater appeared first on SabrangIndia.

कैसा इतिहास-बोध है कि सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता के बाद वैदिक युग आया? कहाँ सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता का नगरीय जीवन और कहाँ वैदिक युग का ग्रामीण जीवन! भला कोई सभ्यता नगरीय जीवन से ग्रामीण जीवन की ओर चलती है क्या? सिंधु घाटी के बड़े-बड़े नगरों के आलीशान मकान की जगह कैसे पूरे उत्तरी भारत के वैदिक युग में अचानक नरकूलों की झोंपड़ी उग आई, जिसकी व्याख्या आप सिंधु घाटी में हुए जल-प्लावन, नर-संहार या महामारी को आरोपित करके किया करते हैं। आपको ऐसा इतिहास-बोध उलटा नहीं लगता है?
 
यदि सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता में भारत का प्रथम नगरीकरण हुआ तो इतिहास गवाह है कि भारत का द्वितीय नगरीकरण बुद्ध के युग में हुआ था, जब पूर्वोत्तर भारत में भी अनेक नगरों की स्थापना हुई; मिसाल के तौर पर कौशांबी, कुशीनगर, वाराणसी, वैशाली, चिराँद और राजगीर। इसलिए आप कह सकते हैं कि सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता का नगरीय जीवन पूरे उत्तरी भारत के मैदानी इलाकों में बुद्ध के युग में उतरा। इसलिए बुद्ध का समय परवर्ती सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता के समानांतर और उससे जुड़कर था। यह है इतिहास की सही व्याख्या।
 
आप पढ़ाते हैं कि सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता में लेखन – कला विकसित थी और फिर उसके बाद की वैदिक संस्कृति में पढ़ाने लगते हैं कि वैदिक युग में लेखन – कला का विकास नहीं हुआ था। वैदिक युग में लोग मौखिक याद करते थे और लिखते नहीं थे। ऐसा भी होता है क्या? पढ़ी-लिखी सभ्यता अचानक अनपढ़ हो जाती है क्या?
 
जी नहीं, सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता के बाद भी लेखन-कला जारी थी। इसके लिए आपको उन इतिहासकारों की स्थापना को मान्यता देनी होगी जो यह मानते हैं कि शिशुनाग वंश की स्थापना 1999 ई.पू. में हुई थी और अजातशत्रु इस वंश का छठा राजा था और वह 1825 ई.पू. में सत्तारूढ हुआ जिसके आठवें वर्ष अर्थात 1818 ई.पू. में बुद्ध का निर्वाण हुआ था।
 
आप यह भी पढ़ाते हैं कि सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता में मूर्ति-कला थी; मिसाल के तौर पर मातृदेवी की मूर्ति, पुजारी की मूर्ति आदि। फिर उसके बाद पढ़ाते हैं कि वैदिक युग में मूर्ति-कला नहीं थी। मूर्ति-कला तो बुद्ध के युग की देन है। यह सब उलटा नहीं है? मूर्ति-कला अचानक विलुप्त कैसे हो गई? दरअसल बुद्ध का युग परवर्ती सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता के समानांतर और उससे जुड़कर था। इसलिए सिंधु घाटी की सभ्यता की मूर्ति-कला बुद्ध के युग के बाद और भी विकसित हुई है।
 
भारत में नगरीकरण, लेखन-कला , मूर्ति-कला, व्यापार और सिक्कों का विकास निरंतर हुआ है। कोई गैप नहीं है। यदि इतिहास में ऐसा गैप आपको दिखाई पड़ रहा है तो वह वैदिक संस्कृति को भारतीय इतिहास में ऐडजस्ट करने के कारण दिखाई पड़ रहा है। आपको इतिहास का पुनर्लेखन करना होगा। बुद्ध का समय, शिशुनाग वंश, मौर्य वंश आदि को और पीछे ले जाना होगा।
 

The post भारतीय इतिहास में मिसफ़िट वैदिक युग appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In this context, it would be educative to look closely at the prescribed textbooks for history and social studies teaching in Gujarat, with virtually no alterations since 1991, many books prescribed by the ICSE national board among others, and even some college level texts that contain these problematic formulations. 

One of the recurring myths about Indian culture, perpetuated ad noseum is that it is one of the most non-violent, peace-loving and tolerant

The state syllabus detailed in the texts being currently used by the Gujarat state board, outlines clearly for the teacher and student of history that when the author(s) of the text-book write about India they use the term for the modern nation as synonymous with “Hindu”. The student is instructed that the idea of studying social studies is to develop a true understanding of ancient India. The political implications of this assumption are significant and dangerous, because, immediately for the history learner paradigms have been drawn. It is only within these that adjustments are subsequently made for ‘synthesis’ or ‘syncretism.’

The syllabus for the standard five social studies text printed by the Gujarat State board, outlines the objective of the syllabus that has been laid out for the ten-year-old child:

‘Towards understanding the Indian Cultural heritage in a proper perspective’. 
This ‘perspective’, as described below in detail, outlines erroneously that the ancient age begins with Vedic times.It becomes clear from this introductory social studies text for the fifth standard child that no perspective of world ancient civilisations is given through the syllabus; that the desire is not just to begin and end with India, but ancient India has been made synonymous with the Vedic; and that values like ‘respectable status of women in Indian culture’ are rooted in the characters depicted through stories taken from the Vedas. There is no attempt to develop any sense of historical enquiry that could lead to a student understanding the quality of life and civilisations that existed pre-Vedas; the exchanges that took place between ancient peoples through river and sea routes etc. 

Not only is this kind of social studies self-limiting and restrictive, it is an approach that is set to stifle free thinking and enquiry. Here is how the objective of the syllabus is outlined: 

Ø  Ancient Age (From Vedic times to  Harshavardhan)

Ø  Is introduced to Vedic literature which is an expression of Indian Culture.

Ø    Knows about the respectable status of women in Indian culture. 

Ø Gets acquainted with the basic truths of life against a backdrop of Indian Culture.

Ø  Learns for himself the truth; that in the context of Indian culture a person acquires a high status not by right of birth but by merit.

Ø   Knows about how in the Indian Cultural context the rules were oriented towards the subjects. 
Ø   Imbibes the basic values of Indian Culture expressed by the narratives of the epics, Ramayana, Mahabharat, and by the main characters in it. 

Ø   For instance, the importance of 1) The purity of domestic life 2) Steadfastness in adhering to truth even at the cost of suffering.

Ø   Moulds the character which makes one abide by ones duty when there is a conflict between personal relationship and a sense of duty. 
(Social Studies text, Gujarat state board, Std. V)

Apart from the stated objective of portraying ancient Indian culture as synonymous with the Vedas, the Gujarat board texts also proceed to depict Indian culture as inherently superior to any other.

In the chapter titled, ‘The Cultural Heritage of Ancient India’, the child is told: “Ancient Indian history covers a period of about four thousand years. It can be divided into the following periods: The Indus valley civilisation period, the Vedic period, the post-Vedic period, the Epic period, the Age of Buddha and Mahavir, the Maurya and the Post-Gupta periods and the Early Muslim period.” The same text goes on to assert that from the beginning of the Indus valley period to the ‘end of Hindu supremacy’ the contribution of Indian civilisation was unique, implying that, thereafter, with the ‘Muslim period’ the contribution could not be measured in a similar fashion. 

“Right from the coming of the Aryans to India (around 2000 B.C.) to the end of the Hindu supremacy (around 1200 A.D.). The Indian civilisation made a unique contribution in many different fields of life, a contribution which includes certain high moral values. It is because of this reason that the ancient civilisation of India has survived today in the form of Indian culture while other ancient civilisation like those of Egypt, Mesopotamia (Iraq) and China have disappeared from the world. These countries do not have the continuity of culture, which is found in the Indian culture.”

The same, Std. IX text, that selectively excludes historical details like the Shaivite-Buddhist conflicts, oppression of women and the shudras, the state of Dalits even today, is however emphatic that “the inherent peace and tolerance of Indian culture” is one of its characteristics. This is one of the recurring myths that have been repeated ad nauseum about India and her ancient culture, the fact that it is “the most non-violent, peace-loving and tolerant”, a myth that is essential if the ‘Hindu’ is to be pitted as the quintessential Indian, a myth that sits well with the ‘others’  being labelled both ‘invaders’ and ‘foreigners’. It is also a myth that seeks to justify present-day violence against the country’s minorities, seeking justification for this in ‘the wrongs of yore.’

In a section titled ‘Tolerance and urge for peace’, the fourteen- year- old is told: “Tolerance and a strong desire for peace are two distinct features of Indian culture. Brahminism with its two main functions namely Shaivism and Vishnavism. Buddhism and Jainism were the main faith followed in ancient India. These faiths adopted a policy of tolerance towards one another. For examples the Satwahanas and the Guptas were followers of Brahminism. But they showed tolerance towards Buddhism and Jainism and gave financial grants to their places of worship.          

Archived from Communalism Combat, October 1999, Anniversary Issue (6th) Year 7  No. 52, Cover Story 6

The post Ancient India as Hindu appeared first on SabrangIndia.