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.)

The post Assam: After taking an oath to uphold Ambedkar’s Constitution, the BJP CM invoked the Gita to promote caste-based occupation     appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Members of the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) or Shudras have opened up a new anti-caste battlefront in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. The trigger came from a doha or lyrical verse in Goswami Tulsidas’s famous epic poem, Ramcharitmanas, which says the Shudras, animals, drums and women should not be allowed near anything respectable—and punished if they cross boundaries. In this way, the Ramcharitmanas abuses the productive agrarian Shudras as people of animal status who do not deserve education and reputable employment.

Samajwadi Party leader Swami Prasad Maurya in Uttar Pradesh and Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) leader Prof Chandra Shekhar, the education minister of Bihar, flagged off this battle. Now it has spread to Shudra-OBC and Dalit organisations. Chandra Shekhar said the Ramcharitmanas “spreads hatred” and discrimination against the non-elite or lower castes.

The idea is catching on like wildfire. Shudra-OBC leaders have burnt copies of the book, challenging the RSS-BJP’s Dwija or twice-born leaders, saints and sadhus. There is little role for productive work in their lives, which most Sangh Parivar members spend around temples and RSS organisations. Some saints from UP have issued “fatwas” to kill Swami Prasad Maurya for a price. In Bihar, there are demands to dismiss and arrest Chandra Shekhar, but he has refused to apologise.

However, book-burning and banning are no solution—the authentic way out is to rewrite Indian history to include the contributions of the Shudras.

According to the protesters against the abusive language in the Ramcharitmanas, India does not just belong to Dwijas or the Brahmin, Kshatriya, Kayastha, Khatri and Nania, who believe the Shudra, Dalit and Adivasi communities must live as second-grade citizens in Hindu society. The latter do not want their children to learn those ancient or medieval books that abused these identities. They are rejecting syllabi of the kind the RSS-BJP has designed and presented as the “New” Education Policy. They are rebelling against ideas that humiliate them in classrooms and beyond—for example, the books circulated and published by the Gita Press, which promote casteism and Dwija authority in modern India. The New Education Policy wants to systematically promote the regressive ideas in such books.

In Lucknow, several banners appeared with the caption “Garv Se Kaho Hum Shudra Hain—Say with pride, we are Shudras”. They are harking back to the term “Shudra”, which referred to food producers and artisans in ancient and medieval Sanskrit books written by Brahmin saints and priests. These writers imbued the term to mean that the Shudras were unworthy of respect and human dignity, starting with the Rigveda and expanding after that. But the Shudra term is being redeployed by the productive communities as a concept worthy of positive identity. This Shudra movement is like the Black movement in America to rediscover their humiliated past as a weapon to fight for equality.

The Shudras were construed as born of the feet of Brahma, an Aryan war hero given the status of the highest god, while the Shudras were turned into perpetually enslaved people. In the Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Ramcharitmanas and so on, food producers and artisans were condemned to perform hard labour while kings, priests and saints were asked to shun food production and any other form of labour. But it is the labour-power of the Shudras that built this nation. Wealth cannot be produced by books that do not promote human equality and productive work ethics.

The RSS-BJP calls the Shudra and Chandalas (former untouchables) Hindus but does not go beyond making verbal claims. In practice, it denies them equal spiritual rights in temples or access to their Utopian visions of life after death. The power to control temples has remained in the hands of Brahmin priests, and the RSS never sought equal rights for Hindus of other castes—except the three elite classes—to enjoy this power.

Since the 2014 parliamentary election, the RSS-BJP forces have divided the Shudras into lower, middle and upper OBCs. It has mobilised them within the Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Bania voting blocs, which favour the BJP in every election. It did this to weaken the regional parties and strengthen its own power at the cost of the disadvantaged Shudra, Dalit and Adivasis. Make no mistake—even national wealth is being transferred to the hands of Dwija industrialists, as the Hindenburg report, published not from India but overseas, has exposed in the Adani Enterprises case.

The RSS-BJP combine wants to organise Hinduism precisely on the lines of conservative Muslim systems in, say, the Middle East, Pakistan or Afghanistan, where kings, dictators or religious figures control the wheels of power. That is why we hear of so-called religious “leaders” in North India issuing fatwas against Shudra leaders.

We must redefine the Shudra category as a dignified, productive force with a role in the political, social, economic and educational fields. Without mass mobilisation around this historical category, the productive status of the masses will get pushed back to Tulsidas’s time. This is why “Say with pride, we are Shudras” is the right slogan for these times.

When Chandra Shekhar put Manu Dharma Shastra, the Ramcharitmanas and the RSS’s ideological guru MS Golwalkar’s Bunch of Thoughts in the same basket, clarity about this situation emerged. Promoting such knowledge will automatically make classical Shudra-Dalit enslavement the norm. Today, OBC-Dalit schoolchildren do not realise that the Shudra category refers to their productive, labouring parents. We need a new cultural battlefront to stop their modern enslavement.

Periyar Ramasamy started this fight in Tamil Nadu, unifying the Shudra-Dalit categories as Dravidians. The RSS-BJP plan is to break Dravidian unity and Shudra-Dalit-Adivasi unity by putting the Muslims up as enemies of Hindus. The Shudras and Dalits have bought into the RSS-BJP’s claims about a Muslim threat to the nation and voted them to power in Delhi and several States. But its undeclared agenda is to relegate the Shudra-Dalit forces to classical Brahmanical hegemony.

For all these reasons, India must start an intellectual battlefront by reading and re-reading Sanskrit texts. BR Ambedkar did this during his time, but the RSS-BJP are trying to co-opt his ideas by selectively quoting him on the minority question. A new discourse around the foundational books of the RSS-BJP—what they call Sanatan Dharma books—must also begin. Many Dalit scholars in North India do not want to enter this debate since they believe the Dalits are Buddhists and need not fight with Hindu religious ideology. But Shudra intellectuals and leaders have to fight this ideological battle.

In Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, Shudra leaders have realised that the New Education Policy reimposes the classical slavery of Shudra-Dalits in the garb of nationalism. Through it, the RSS-BJP regime wants to impose anti-Shudra and anti-Dalit books as sacred texts and lessons in schools, colleges and universities, where children and youth from these backgrounds study.

The slogan, “Garv Se Kaho Hum Shudra Hain”, shows a way out. Reuniting all productive communities, split into reserved (OBC) and unreserved Shudras, is necessary. If regional parties join this battle, it will signal definite hope for transformation. Once a historical category transforms into a category for social change—like the category ‘Black’ discarded ‘African-American’ and ‘Negro’—the Shudra identity will develop the next stage of social movement in India after the Mandal revolution. This new path is filled with hope, and Mahatma Phule, Periyar Ramasamy Naikar and Ambedkar are its guiding lights.

The author is a political theorist, social activist and author of ‘The Shudras: Vision For New Path’ with Karthik Raja Kuruppusamy. His next book will be The Shudras: History From Field Memories. The views are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post A New Shudra Movement Arrives in North India appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Babasaheb Ambedkar’s prefaces to his works were often as penetrating and incisive as the main body of the work that followed. His book, Who were the Shudras? How they came to be the  Fourth Varna in the Indo-Aryan Society  written in 1946, was dedicated to Mahatma Phule (or Fule): “Inscribed to the Memory of  MAHATMA JOTIBA FULE,” runs the dedicatory line in the book.

For Dr. Ambedkar, Phule (or Fule) was the “Greatest Shudra of Modern India,” of course, “because he made the lower classes of Hindus conscious of their slavery to the higher classes” but more specifically because he “preached the gospel that for India social democracy was more vital than independence from foreign rule.”

Babsaheb had already set forth this argument in his book from the 1930s, Annihilation of Caste (AoC), wherein he had stressed on the need for social reform to precede political reform. It was in the spirit of searching for ways to get to the bottom of social deformities and emerging with clues towards social reform that he had undertaken the project of investigating the history of the Sudras.

Who were the Shudras was written before Dr. Ambedkar embarked upon the successor volume, Who were the Untouchables, which appeared in 1948. As the title of the former book makes it clear, it was regarding the Shudras, who were, in the caste hierarchy, a rung above the Untouchables, Ambedkar’s own people. Yet, in the overall spirit of seeking justice from the Hindu social order, in tribute to the groundwork laid by Jotiba Phule in anti caste struggle, and to address the “problem of the Shudras,” as he calls it, he undertook the remarkable project of researching and writing Who were the Shudras. 

He explained the seriousness of the problem at hand to justify a penetrating study into the historical background of the problem: 

Under the system of Chaturvarnya, the Shudra is not only placed at the bottom of the gradation but he is subjected to innumerable ignominies and disabilities so as to prevent him from rising above the condition fixed for him by law. Indeed until the fifth Varna of the Untouchables came into being, the Shudras were in the eyes of the Hindus the lowest of the low. This shows the nature of what might be called the problem of the Shudras. If people have no idea of the magnitude of the problem it is because they have not cared to know what the population of the Shudras is. Unfortunately, the census does not show their population separately. But there is no doubt that excluding the Untouchables the Shudras form about 75 to 80 per cent of the population of Hindus. A treatise which deals with so vast a population cannot be considered to be dealing with a trivial problem.

What mattered to Ambedkar was the fact that the Shudras were “subjected to innumerable ignominies and disabilities,” and given their large proportion in the population of Hindus, their condition pointed to the severity of the social ills within Hinduism – and thus the crying need for social reform.

But, being the brilliant legal mind, he also undertook this painstaking study based on empirical evidence of the fact of the Shudras’ and Untouchables’ actual prevailing condition as proof of the continuance of the Varna system, despite what someone might have claimed. “The best evidence to show that the Varna system is alive notwithstanding there is no law to enforce it, is to be found in the fact that the status of the Shudras and the Untouchables in the Hindu society has remained just what it has been. It cannot therefore be said that a study such as this is unnecessary,” he observed.

He repeated his conviction about the primacy of social reform at different places over the years. In the Preface to Who were the Shudras, he once again alludes to it explicitly, when he describes the possible reactions from his Hindu readers to his book. Speaking about the “politically minded” class of Hindus – surely an influential class of Hindus – Babsaheb felt that they would be “indifferent to such questions” because for them, “Swaraj [was] more important than social reform.”

His book, with its deep interrogation of Hindu sacred literature, was directed at scholars too, since Ambedkar knew that his thorough engagement with that literature had scarcely been carried out by anyone else, either by the Brahmanical Hindus for whom the literature was sacred, or by the Indological scholars who had pioneered the study of India’s past by utilizing its Brahmanical literature. 

Ambedkar was confident of the fruit of his labours, for he felt that even his scholarly critics would “have to admit that the book [was] rich in fresh insights and new visions.”

But, while he was solicitous of the reaction of the scholars and the general Hindu reader, he also anticipated their charges against him, as a non-expert in matters of religion and religious history of India: “I have already been warned that while I may have a right to speak on Indian politics, religion and religious history of India are not my field and that I must not enter it.”

With disarming simplicity and directness, Dr. Ambedkar, while agreeing to the charges that he was not proficient in the Sanskrit language, responds to the accusations against him by turning them on their head by revealing their pettiness: “For I venture to say that a study of the relevant literature, albeit in English translations, for 15 years ought to be enough to invest even a person endowed with such moderate intelligence like myself, with sufficient degree of competence for the task.”

Dr. Ambedkar is actually making several very important points here, all at once, even under the modesty of acknowledging himself as “ a person endowed with…moderate intelligence.” He is making the claim that a sufficient amount of engagement with so-called specialized material (“15 years”) by someone even of moderate intelligence should be grounds enough for a certain degree of understanding of the material. 

He also seems to be  undermining the vaunted loftiness and impenetrability of the Hindu sacred literature while making a case for the non-expert to be fully capable of acquiring a modicum of competence in dealing with an area deemed for experts. He also seems to be conveying that, despite the accusations of not using the sacred texts in the sacred language, he has utilized the best scholarship available in the form of translations. 

For, anyone with even a superficial familiarity with the fields of scholarship in matters of Hindu Brahmanical traditions and their literature, what is termed Indological research, will know that Dr. Ambedkar utilized the most recent and reliable scholarship in the field in his time and before, whether Indian or European. 

In Who were the Shudras, he references a stunning array of scholars as was his hallmark, and these include not just Europeans like Max Mueller, John Muir, V. Fausboll, Horace Wilson, but Indian scholars like P.V. Kane (of Dharmashastra fame), V.S. Sukhthankar (“the erudite editor of the critical edition of the Mahabharata”), K.P. Jayaswal (Hindu Polity) and S.D. Satwalekar (Rig Veda).

It might be pertinent to note that Dr. Ambedkar’s zeal to explore the depths of Indian religious traditions. He had attempted, while still in London for his London School of Economics thesis, to try to learn Sanskrit from one of Europe’s leading Indologist, Hermann Jacobi, at the Bonn University in Germany, as described by scholar Maria Bellwinkel-Schempp. That did not come to pass but it just goes to indicate the burning quest Dr. Ambedkar was on. Those 15-years of study that he mentions in the Preface were marked by intense effort at engaging with all manner and complexity of textual material, as recorded by his personal aide in Delhi, Nanak Chand Rattu, in his book Reminiscences and remembrances of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.

Even when referencing Indological scholars, many Europeans among whom were the target of niggling disagreements about their methods and intentions down the years, Ambedkar exercised his own judgement in evaluating every interpretation they offered. Consider his verdict on the description of Shudras as “anasa” at several places in the Rig Veda. While heavyweight Sanskritist and Indologist Max Mueller parses it as “one without a nose,” Sayana, the 14th century commentator on the Rig Veda, holds that it means “mouthless, that is devoid of good speech.” Dr. Ambedkar casts his vote for Sayana’s version based on a contextual evaluation of the description of the Shudras, thereby not blindly privileging a leading Indologist’s opinion.

Not just that, as a uncompromisingly conscientious scholar, he left nothing to chance, especially the issue of Sanskrit passages in his text, which he had cross-checked by competent scholars: “I must thank Prof. Kangle of Ismail Yusuf College, Andheri, Bombay. He has come to my rescue and has checked the translation of Sanskrit shlokas which occur in the book. As I am not a Sanskrit scholar, his help has been to me a sort of an assurance that I have not bungled badly in dealing with the material which is in Sanskrit,” he notes in the book.

It is worth noting at this stage that the so-called expert’s domain as also fenced-off by the expert’s language is an exclusionary stance, meant to keep away the well-meaning “non-expert” who might uncover inconvenient truths. All traditions which originally record their sacred literature in a sacred language – Brahmanical Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism – also develop traditions of commentaries (and sub commentaries) to elucidate the message and purport in the sacred language. 

Many of these commentaries are not written in the sacred language but in other, “non-sacred” languages, but are held in great esteem down generations. Casting doubts on Dr. Ambedkar’s relatively less-advanced grasp of Sanskrit as evidence for his ineligibility to make a foray into Indian religions and their literature is obviously baseless. This is more so if one considers the kind of utilitarian research that Dr. Ambedkar sets out to perform in Who were the Shudras, where he mostly looks for evidence of certain names, meanings of some terms, and some more historical and mundane information, rather than engaging with possibly multi-layered ideological interpretations. 

More recently, the noted linguist and political activist, Noam Chomsky, when faced with similar criticism for expressing opinions in a field he is not considered an expert in, is said to have observed that, “Virtually anybody who stops watching television, paying attention to sporting events, or playing the stock market, and concentrates, instead, on the society in which he or she lives, could effect an appropriate political critique.” 

Even with regard to the historical method he employs, Dr. Ambedkar makes his procedure clear: “Firstly I claim that in my research I have been guided by the best tradition of the historian who treats all literature as vulgar – I  am using the word in its original sense of belonging to the people—to be examined and tested by accepted rules of evidence without recognizing any distinction between the sacred and the profane and with the sole object of finding the truth.” One cannot miss the method of constant examination and testing “by accepted rule of evidence” employed scrupulously by this polymath who also happened to be a legist. 

The book itself, Who were the Shudras, is testimony to the thoroughness of a scholar on a quest for uncovering the truth. Dr. Ambedkar probes every “sacred text” he can lay his hands on to make his argument. His reading and references are staggeringly vast, covering pretty much the entire Vedic corpus as it is known – from the Vedic Samhitas, to Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads – to other “sacred texts” such as the Dharma Sutras, Dharma Shastras, the Epics and Puranas. He also strays into Indo-Iranian texts and linguistics to find instances and meaning of cognate terms.

His methods, mostly of textual analysis, are not unlike those utilized by a lot of Indological scholars, but crucially, Dr. Ambedkar was not writing a generalist’s descriptive book on Vedic history of mythology; he scoured these often repetitive and ritualistic texts for instances of things like origin stories and was able to compare them with acute observation – and draw conclusions. Just dealing with the host of ancient personages especially in Vedic literature and  keeping all the accounts with their tiny variations in some sort of order and organization is a feat that even experienced Indologists and textual scholars might not be able to match. 

All this, “to proclaim the truth,” as he declared in the book, and needless to say, to seek justice for those who suffered from the system of graded inequality, which, as he reiterates in the book, “is not merely notional [but] is legal and penal.” 

But even in his quest against this system of inequality, engaging with the Brahmin’s books which, according to him, “contain[ed] fabrications which are political in their motive, partisan in their composition and fraudulent in their purpose,” he never lost his grace and magnanimity. Much like in the Annihilation of Caste, he addressed the  Orthodox Hindus too: “[N]o matter what happens…follow the determination of Dr. Johnson in the pursuit of historical truth by the exposure of the Sacred Books so that the Hindus may know that it is the doctrines contained in their Sacred Books which are responsible for the decline and fall of their country and their society; secondly, if the Hindus of this generation do not take notice of what I have to say I am sure the future generation will.” 

Despite all the doubts cast on his abilities and abuses hurled at him for challenging orthodoxy, he still had kind advice for the orthodox Hindus – and hope in the future generation of Hindus. He even had the intellectual capaciousness to quote a line from the Sanskrit poet and playwright, Bhavabhuti: “Time is infinite and earth is vast, some day there will be born a man who will appreciate what I have said.” He can rest assured that there are an increasing number of women and men around the world who deeply appreciate what he said. —

Umang Kumar is a socially conscious citizen living in the National Capital Region of Delhi.

The post Reading Dr. Ambedkar’s Who Were The Shudras appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

 
The Nair Service Society (NSS) is supporting the most destructive anti-women anti-Shudra Manuvad in the name of Sabarimala temple’s sanctity. The Nair men for centuries surrendered the Nair women’s self-respect to the Brahmin males in the worst Manuvadi system called Sambandam. The Brahmin men exploited the Nair women worse than the slave masters exploited the African American women for centuries. The Brahmin men procreated children in Sambandam and left them to their own fate.
 
The Nairs are considered to be Savarna in the Kerala society but they do not have any spiritual rights within the temple system. They are the fourth Varna called Shudra, who were slaves for a long time in history, right from the days of Rigveda. They cannot become priests and they cannot interpret the Hindu scriptures called Vedas and Bhagavad Gita. There are no Hindu theological schools, colleges that allow Nairs to study theology, leave alone the lower Shudras (who consider themselves as Avarnas in the Kerala context). Yet Nairs, particularly Nair men, after establishing the Nair Service Society (NSS), remain so backward that they almost live at the feet of Brahmins as spiritual slaves. Such a tendency of the Shudras has done great damage to the Shudra social and spiritual culture of equality.
 
This spiritual slavery of the NSS has come out very clearly on the event of the Ayyappa temple entry for women.
 
Ayyappa is a Shudra God like Beerappa of two Telugu states. Both Ayyappa and Beerappa have the Indo-African roots and they are the descendants of the famous Harappa in whose name the first city of the world was built at the Indus basin. After the Aryan migrants of the Brahmin ancestry invaded India and destroyed that civilization, several of Harappa’s descendants migrated to the South. Ayyappa, Beerappa (the shepherd Gods of Telugu region) and many others who bear such names like Veerappa, Mallappa and so on, must have migrated to the South and done great service to society. Hence, they became Godheads.
 
Thus, Ayyappa in his black dress represents the Shudra-Dravidian culture which has its roots in the Indo-African heritage against the Indo-Aryan Brahminic Vedic saffron dress code. There is no saffron dress code there. Ayyappa like Shirdi Sai Baba has become a secular Shudra God who is mostly visited by Shudra-Dalit devotees in black dresses.
 
The anti-women code of this Ayyappa God was imposed by the Namboothiri Brahmins only in the recent years when they took over the temple priesthood, as it was mobilizing huge finances. The Nair men are involved only in the temple management committee. The real pooja work is done by the Brahmin priests and they are the ones who wrote this code that women between 10 and 50 should not enter the temple. In fact, the Brahmin priest should be expelled from there and only the Shudras should perform the priestly functions.
 
No Shudra temple in the country has a norm where women’s entry is barred. In fact, many Shudra goddesses like Pochamma, Kali, Durga don’t follow man-woman segregation. All kinds of people visit these temples and Brahmins were never poojaris in those temples.
 
After the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) got strengthened, as it is a Brahmin headed organization, they started imposing Brahmin priests by displacing the Shudra priests in many Shudra temples. The Ayyappa temple is a classic example, how Brahmins took over this temple and women were denied of the right to enter, imposing the theory that menstruation blood is pollution. They do not consider male sexual discharge as pollution. This is mainly a Brahmin theory. This was never a Shudra theory.
 
The Shudra culture of India, which is the culture of majority people, does not believe in this theory of sexual discharge of female or male being spiritually pollutant. All productive communities world over never believed this kind of anti-production and procreational theories.
 
The Shudra belief is that female and male sexual discharges are sources of human birth. They are never the source of human death. Thus, woman’s menstrual blood is seen as sacred and source of human regeneration.
 
The Aryan Brahminism, which never involved in production believed that all production work is pollution. They never realized that ‘without mud, there cannot be food’. Food is produced only out of the mud. Hence mud is not anti-God as God himself or herself gets involved in all forms of production.
 
Today Mohan Bhagwat, the head priest from Nagpur, declared a war on the Supreme Court judgment of man-woman equality at Hindu temples. They actually want restrictions on women’s entry at all temples.
 
A Shudra productive community like Nair community joining hands with RSS Brahminism has caused historical damage to the Shudra values of India that were nurtured as egalitarian values from the days of Harappa. The equality battle at Ayyappa temple is going to be a battle between Shudraism and Brahminism.
 
The Shudras of India including Kammas, Reddys, Patels, Jats, Gujjars, Yadavs, Marathas, Kumbhis, Kurmis (of Bihar), Lingayats, Vakkalingas, Modaliyars, Nayakars and so on along with other OBCs must oppose the Brahmin conspiracy of taking back our women to pre-Independence status. All the OBCs in the reserved category must understand the conspiracy of these Brahmin-Bania forces from Delhi to Galli. They want to create conditions against equality which slowly will lead to taking away reservations.
 
Mohan Bhagwat is driving the country to see that all the Shudras/OBCs/Dalits/Adivasis do not even think about equality in the future.
 
The progressive Nairs, wherever they are, must force the leadership of the NSS to get out of this Brahmin trap. Otherwise, the poor agrarian productive Nairs will suffer hugely in the future. Particularly the Nair women must be saved from the danger of getting destroyed. The Army of Mohan Bhagwat will drive them to suicide once they start believing that their own bodies are full of pollution.
 
I call upon the progressive Nair women to save the great community women for whom I have great respect as they suffered more than any other Shudra women in Indian history.
 
Prof. Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is Chairman T-MASS and political theorist. He is the Director, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad.
 

The post Shudras should assert their rightful control on the Sabarimala temple appeared first on SabrangIndia.

It is clear that without fighting the forces that represent Hindutva, both ideologically and politically, the legacy of Rohith Vemula cannot be carried forward. The larger challenge lies in envisioning and struggling for a caste free society.

If anyone not of our own
Happens to read this manuscript:
Heads will roll
Hearts will beat to death
Brains will curdle.
All that one has learned
Will be lost.
Now, I have placed curses
On my own words.
 
– NT Rajkumar
(translated from the Tamil Panirendhu Kavithaigal)

A Preface to the Current Discussion
 Rohith Vemula’s death – an institutional murder of the casteist-communal combine – has led to numerous discussions and debates around the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the political ideology of Hindutva.
 
This is not the first time that the BJP-RSS combine has surfaced in controversies in recent times. Nor is it the first case of suicide by a Dalit-Adivasi in higher educational institutions. In recent decades the RSS along with it’s frontal organisations rose to prominence with three incidents starting with the anti-reservation riots in Gujarat in the 80s, followed by Advani’s rathayatra and the attempt to demolish the Babri Masjid, leading up to the Muslim genocide in Gujarat in 2002.
 
Vemula’s death has raised eyebrows all over the  world, as it is the continuum of the Hindutva assault on Dalit assertions. In many ways the radical Dalit politics espoused by groups like the Ambedkar Students Association (ASA) is diametrically opposite to that of Hindutva. Nothing else punctures the pompous claims about Hindu civilisation, culture and rashtra, as effectively as radical Dalit politics.
 
The present phase of fascism is a more organised and systematic blend to sustain the caste-class-communal legacy for a prolonged period.

Ever since the articulation of the Phule-Ambedkar discourse, radical Dalits have pointedly questioned the very existence of a Hindu society, culture and civilisation. Against tall claims of Brahmanical spirituality, this discourse laid bare the inhumanity of the Vedas[1] and Smritis in justifying and establishing the system of caste brutality.
 
Against claims of a unified Hindu world existing through the millennia, this discourse highlighted the continued opposition to Brahminism in history through Charvaka philosophy, Buddhism, Sramanic traditions and radical sections of the Bhakti movement. Thus, Hindutva forces cannot accuse radical Dalit politics of being a conspiracy of a westernised elite, or of de-classed intellectuals. It is organically Indian, and is a result of the real life experiences of one sixth of the most marginalised and poor sections of Indians.
 
The radical Dalit discourse has also resisted the culture of domination, and rejected the patronising overtures of reformist caste Hindus as for example, Gandhi re-christening erstwhile untouchables as Harijans, or the more recent claim of Narendra Modi who said in the book Karmayogi (published in 2007), that cleaning garbage is a spiritual experience for scavenger castes.
 
Golwalkar praises Manu as the greatest lawgiver mankind ever had. It was the same lawgiver Manu's book, which was burnt by Ambedkar in his pursuit of getting justice for the Dalits. In current times Golwalkars’ successor also demanded a throwing away of Indian constitution.

Ambedkar's announcement that ‘though I was born a Hindu, I solemnly assure you that I will not die as a Hindu,’ encapsulates the relationship of radical Dalit consciousness to Hindu religion. The hegemony of upper caste Hindus over Indian society in modern times grew out of the failure of the Ambedkarite radical separatism in the face of Gandhian intimidation that led to the 1932 Poona Pact. While there indeed is a generalised hostility towards Dalits among caste Hindus, the contradiction of radical Dalit consciousness is sharpest with Brahmanical Hindutva.

Radical Dalit consciousness, in its Ambdekarite form, stands for rational humanism and liberation of all irrespective of caste, gender and ethnicity. Brahmanical Hindutva’s motivating force is communal hatred, and its organising principle is religion based, patriarchal and violent nationalism.
 
No wonder the British never repressed the RSS. The collusion between religion based nationalism and colonialism can be understood from such statements.

It would not be out of place to state that these philosophical and ideological postulations have not arisen out of the blue, rather they had a steady and thorough progress in history.
 
It is time to examine these ideological positions, which essentially have a communal colour. Examining them from the Dalit-Adivasi viewpoint is crucial since it would unfold the dynamics of the social, and religious politics of communal fascism to the lowest level.
 
In a broader perspective, communalism of polity is preliminary to fascism of polity. In today’s context what is going on in India is not mere communalism of polity –  rather it is the politics of fascism under the Hindutva brigade married to corporate capital. Hence, as a critical outlook, I would like to emphasis some of the major threats faced by the Dalits and Adivasis (or Indigenous people).

From left to right: Manu who inspired Friedrich Nietzsche who inspired Adolf Hitler

Fascism and the Political Theology of Dominance
 

Before getting into a detailed discussion let me place what fascism espouses. Fascism is a construct of entrenched political domination capable of infringing any eligible rights of any individual or group to an unpredictable degree, or magnitude. Historically it took different shapes and forms, depending upon the particular social order. Although it was coined as a political ideology in 1919 with the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini, it has much older roots in India and some parts of the world (George 2006).
 
Never before in history have we witnessed such a period of deliberate drift of further confusing and disempowerment of Dalits and Adivasis.

Fascism is an extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation, or the race, as an organic community that transcends all other loyalties. It emphasises a myth of a national or racial puritan to be celebrated as a natural higher being. It could also be the resurgence of a particular race after a period of decline or destruction.
 
To this end, fascism calls for a ‘spiritual revolution’ against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge ‘alien’ forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism as a rule celebrates masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, except in exceptional situations, it resorts to racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged races or nations (George 2006).
 
Fascism's approach to politics is both populist and elitist. While the former seeks to activate ‘the people’ as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies, in the latter it treats the peoples’ will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organise a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of an organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and as a regime, fascism uses mass organisations as a system of integration and control, and uses organised violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely (George 2006).
 

Understanding Fascism of Caste in Indian Perspective

In the Indian context historical fascism could be widely observed in caste domination and feudal relationship, championed by Hindutva. This is more vibrant than the modern paradigms of communal fascism. The mythical stories of killing of Shambhug by Ram, denial of Eklavya of his right to education and the subsequent chopping off of his right thumb, the counterfeited assassination of Asur king Ravana, the deceitful murder of Bali are only some impulses of this trend of domination over indigenous people. Further these communities were addressed as rakshashas (wild), mleccha (filthy) barbarian, uncivilised, and so on. Both Vedic and Sanskrit texts have justified the invasion and exploitation of Aryans and explicitly supported the superiority of the Aryan race and Vedic philosophy to the extent that their fate of being in the higher beings is considered as god given (George 2006).
 
The political successes of Hindutva are growing out of the casteism, patriarchy, insecurities and superstitions of the generalised Hindu common sense. It is high time social forces fighting against Hindutva realise its casteist core, and understand the nature of its assault on anything that is different or radical.

The present phase of fascism is a more organised and systematic blend to sustain the caste-class-communal legacy for a more prolonged period. In modern times it started with the emergence of Hindu Chauvinism and Cultural Nationalism under the leadership of the RSS led camp. This camp learnt various things from different sectors. They learnt the skills in organising and mobilising from Communist parties, mastered the management techniques from Churches and Christian institutions, the one-man dictator model of Adolph Hitler and the methods of maintaining private militia.
 
In a nutshell, the whole exercise was to sustain and strengthen the same old ideology of purity of the three upper varnas and to consider the Shudras and Panchamas as impure and polluting. This has resulted in a twin strategy of dictating to the ex-untouchables and non-Hindu groups, which is the present form of communal fascism in India. The current mode of ensuring a deeply polarised and communal polity coupled with sustained casteism apparently speaks of this truth (George 2006).
 

MS Golwalkar (left) and KB Hedgewar: Inspired equally by Manu and Hitler

The Ideological Upsurge of Hindutva

In modern times the ideological upsurge of Hindutva has got a definite periodicity which can be traced from the early nineteenth century. It arose as a system to put a break on the increasing reforms within the Hindu religion. These reforms could be listed as advocating freedom to women through abolition of sati, child marriage, opening the boundaries of educational institutions to women and to a certain level opening up educational space for the Shudras and untouchables.
 
However since the Muslims constituted a sizeable population, they were considered as a big threat to the Hindu society. Christians who opened health and educational institutions for all, particularly in Dalit and Adivasi areas, thus threatened the social fabric of caste.  On the other side Christianity was accepted as the mainstream faith by these oppressed groups – as a means to escape the order of caste. Thus Christian conversion turned out to be a major threat to the Brahminical social hierarchy of caste. Hence a counter ideology was obligatory for the sustenance of Hindutva. The ideological formulation in the Indian context could be seen in three different phases – first is the sowing of seeds of communalism through articulations and practice of a Hindutva worldview in modern India included its consolidation (Hindutva) as an ideological tool, and third through devised programmatic patterns (George 2006).
 
Perhaps Bankim Chandra Chatterjee first sowed the seeds of communalism through his novel ‘Anand Math’. This novel could be considered to be the foundational text of the current Hindu Cultural Nationalism.
 
There is a specific backdrop of this novel during British rule in India, where the context is projected against the white supremacy applying for a prolonged process of piecemeal conquest and prudent consolidation. This text fuelled discontent, resentment and resistance at every stage, wherein deposed Rajas, Nawabs or uprooted Zamindars and landlords often led a series of rebellions during the first hundred years of British rule. Peasants, ruined artisans, demobilised soldiers and discontented people formed the backbone of such rebellion. These rebellions were generally localised involving armed bands of a few hundred to several thousands. The civil rebellions grew in Bengal and Bihar as British rule was gradually consolidated and further spread to other places. There was hardly any year without an armed rebellion in some part of the country. From 1763 to 1856 there were more than forty major and hundreds of minor rebellions. Dispossessed peasants and demobilised soldiers of Bengal were the first to rise.
 
One of the major rebellions was the sanyasi (saint) rebellion of Bengal, which was described artfully in Anand Math. This is the background from where a clear divide between the Hindus and Muslims in Bengal began. It is in this novel that the song Vande Mataram first surfaced, which the Indian nationalists chose to sing in praise of ‘Mother India’. It comes from a tradition of mythologising a fictive imagined nation personified as a Devi (goddess). In the novel the context of the anthem was overtly anti-Muslim and treated them as a separate nation. Invocation of the deities like Durga, Kali and Lakshmi all run counter to the secular credentials. This was basically meant to instil inspiration among the Hindus to work for the destruction of the Muslim rule in Bengal.
 
The hero of the novel, Bhawan and is an ascetic. He recruits men for his mission. He meets a youth, Mahender. He then tries to explain to him the meaning of Vande Mataram and warns him that unless the Muslims are banished from the Indian soil, his faith will be in constant danger. Mahender asks him if he would face the Muslims alone. Bhawanand replies by  asking whether 30 crore voices with 60 crore swords in both their arms would be enough for the mission. (vide the third stanza of Vande Mataram) When Mahender is not satisfied even then, Bhawanand takes him to Anand Math (the title of the novel). The Brahmachari of the Math takes Mahender inside the Math.
 
The Math is half-illuminated with a narrow entrance. He enters the Math where he sees a big idol of Vishnu flanked by Lakshmi and Saraswati on either side. The Brahmachari introduces it to Mahender as the Mata and asks him to say Vande Mataram. He then takes him to another chamber where he describes the female deity as Jagatdhatri, the sole keeper of the Indian soil. He exhorts about the glorious past of India, symbolised by these goddesses, then he takes him to a chamber where he shows him the naked Kali. She is black, unclothed and wears a garland of skulls, symbolising death, decay and impurity.
 
Kali is described here as crushing Mahadeva, who is the said symbol of peace and unity. He synonymises the present state of the country with Kali. Finally he takes him to a chamber where a magnificent idol of goddess Durga is kept symbolising the future of the nation, which is to be upheld by her. Here the Brahmachari prays to the goddess chanting: ‘we worship ye, O Mata Durga, who possesses ten hands. Ye are the Lakshmi whose abode is lotus. Ye are the bestower of knowledge.’ (Vide the fourth stanza) Now Mahender receives the inspiration and takes a pledge (Islamic Voice: 1998).
 
The eighth chapter in the third part contains incidents of arson and bloodshed, which inspires the Hindus to turn the lives of the Muslims difficult. Voices are being raised to loot the Muslims and kill them. The atmosphere is filled with Vande Mataram. As a result, the Muslims try to take shelter far and near. The devotees of the Mata ask, ‘when would the time come when we would destroy the mosques and construct the temples of Radha and Mahadev?’ To this the hero of the novel replies, ‘now the English have arrived who will protect our life and property’ (Islamic Voice: 1998). The pertinent question that arises in this text is eventually to ask who is the aggressor, against whom is the aggression aimed at, and at which levels is it perpetrated? The convenient political negotiations and suitability of crude nationalist assimilatory purposes sow the seeds of a divisive politics at every level, which finally culminates in the division of East and West Bengal.
 
Yet, Hindutva was not established as a political ideology, neither in theory nor in practice. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar carried strains also present earlier in Bankim Chandra’s work. Hindutva became an ideology through his writings when his book ‘Essentials of Hindutva’ came into the public domain in 1924.
 
Savarkar (1924: 43-44), stated that an Indian could be only that person who could claim his pitribhumi (fatherland), and who addresses this land of his religion as punyabhumi (Holyland) both lay within the territorial boundaries of British India. These are the essentials of Hindutva – a common rastra (nation) a common jati (race or caste) and a common sanskriti (culture). Furthermore, there had to be a commitment to a common Indian culture, inevitably defined by Hindutva (ibid. 33-37). These qualifications automatically led to Muslims and Christians being regarded as foreigners.
 
Subsequently Golwalkar (1939: 89) added Communists to this list. Both Savarkar (1924) and Golwalkar (1939) introduced race and language as qualifiers of supremacy. While comparing these ideas and symbols with that of their European counterparts, both were contemporaries in the Indian context that reflected emerging and dominant fascist tendencies. Thapar (2004) refers to this as the periods of confusing change where the preference is for a theory that simplifies the social world into ëusí and ëthemí (Thapar 2004). Savarkar along with Golwalkar was the early ideologue of the entire thesis of Hindutva.
 
It is with this intention that the Hindu Mahasabha was formed. Further Savarkar was the inspiration behind the formation of RSS. Hedgewar, an Andhra Brahmin settled in Maharashtra, a disciple of Balkrishna Shivram Moonje and a close friend of Savarkar, established the RSS in 1925 at Nagpur. Hedgewar was sent to Kolkata by Moonje in 1910 to pursue his medical studies and unofficially learn the techniques of terror from the secret revolutionary organisations like the Anushilan Samiti and Jugantar in Bengal. He became a part of the inner circle of the Anushilan Samiti to which very few had access. In 1915 after returning to Nagpur he joined the Indian National Congress and engaged in anti-British activities through the Kranti Dal. He was also a member of the Hindu Mahasabha till 1929 (Ramaswami 2003).
 
Although, Hedgewar established the RSS, it was Golwalkar who was the man behind the entire growth of RSS. Like Savarkar he took this idea of Hindutva further. In his book ‘We or our Nationhood Defined,’ he gives an outline of his ideology. Later his articles were published as a compilation, ‘Bunch of Thoughts.’ In both these books (Golwalkar 1939; 2000) and also in various other outpourings of his, he denigrates democracy and pluralism on one hand and upholds fascist concept of nationhood and sectarian version of culture on the other. His writing is most intimidating to the outcastes and minorities in particular. He was the chief of RSS for 33 long years and was instrumental in giving RSS a direction, which assumed menacing proportions in times to come. He strengthened the foundations of the ‘hate minorities’ ideology resulting in the consequent waves of violence, undermining the democratic norms in the society. He can also be credited with giving the sharp formulations which laid the ideological foundation of different carnages in India (Puniyani 2006).
 
Golwalkar praises Manu as the greatest lawgiver mankind ever had (Golwalkar 1939: 117-118; 2000; 239, 258, 264). It was the same lawgiver Manu's book, which was burnt by Ambedkar in his pursuit of getting justice for the Dalits. In current times Golwalkars’ successor also demanded a throwing away of the Indian constitution, to be replaced by the one which is based on Hindu holy books, implying Manusmriti, of course (Puniyani 2006).
 
Golwalkar’s formulation of Hindutva fascism is so blatant that even his followers struggle hard to cover many of his ostensive judgments. He portrays an ornate love of caste, naked hatred for minorities and eulogises Nazi Germany. Curran (1979: 39) in his classic study says that the ideology of Sangh is based upon principles formulated by its founder, Hedgewar. These principles have been consolidated and amplified by Golwalkar through critical indoctrination of Sangh volunteers (Puniyani 2006). What does Golwalkar say in this book?
 
He rejects the notions of Indian nationhood or even India as a nation in the making. He rejects the idea that all the citizens could be equal. He goes on to harp on the notions of nationhood borrowed from Hitler's Nazi movement. He rejects that India is a secular nation and posits that it is a Hindu rashtra. He rejects the territorial-political concept of nationhood and puts forward the concept of cultural nationalism, which was the foundation of Nazi ideology. He admires Hitler's ideology and politics of puritan nationalism and takes inspiration from the massive holocaust, which decimated millions of people in Germany. Golwalkar uses this as a shield to propagate his political ideology. It is this ideology, which formed the base of communal common sense amongst a section of the population (Puniyani 2006). He builds a parallel between Hinduism and Nazism.
 

 
Today the Modis and Togadias brought up on these lines, do believe in all these ideological propositions, but the language of expression is more polished so that the poison is coated with honey and administered with ease. Golwalkar (1939: 104-105) goes on to assert,
 

Interestingly these sections never participated in the national movement. As a matter of fact RSS and Golwalkar were very contemptuous towards the anti British movement. There is no mention of the presence of RSS in the anti British movement even in the most sympathetic accounts written about it. Since Golwalkar propounded religion-based nationalism, there was no place for anti British stance. Nor did it have any sympathy for the anti-caste movement led by Ambedkar, Periyar, Iyyankali, Mangu ram and others.
 

 
No wonder the British never repressed the RSS. The collusion between religion based nationalism and colonialism can be understood from such statements. Later the world saw that in tune with this pro imperialist ideology, Golwalkar was to support the US aggression on Vietnam and his successor Sudarshan defended the US aggression against Iraq while Modi is the champion of communal genocide in Gujarat.

Domineering Indigenous Life
Controlling all avenues of life at large is the general strategy of RSS and this is part of the larger design of ‘cultural nationalism’, an idea that stretches to the domains of power and political life. At the present time the most crucial aspect of the communal segment is to control the wholesome dynamics of indigenous life and its systems. These champions of the communal-caste brigade applied the stratagem of taking over all the possible institutions of the community and civil society, right from primary schools to the electronic media, in order to create a sense of inferiority and thus to manipulate the masses.
 
Among the indigenous people two processes went in parallel.
 
One was the deliberate formation of institutions such as Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, Ekal Vidyalaya, Bal Bharti, Saraswati Sishu Mandir and Dalit and Adivasi Sanghs at the lowest level to train-up children and youth cadres and thus to inculcate a feeling that indigenous traditions and cultures are too little and inferior to that of Hindu religion.
 
Thus Hindu culture and civilisation is and was held up as the only standard and ideal option left for such groups; perpetuating a caste view that says that the duties assigned under their caste are mandatory to attain a higher janma (birth) in the next round of birth. Ardently following the dictums of the ideal culture and religion become the doctrinal duty of all caste groups. Secondly, an open support to capitalist forces through corporates thereby inducing a consumerist culture within such communities and in such areas. Both these processes went in parallel and are inter-related. One of the outcomes of these aggressive tendencies has been a crucial osmosis of ‘Hindu civilizational strains’ with all its flaws among the indigenous people plus a bonus of corrupting them as units of the consumer market (George: 2006).
 
This fondness for controlling the indigenous has had its own logic – to perpetuate social and cultural slavery along with the clear establishment of political power and to take over the control over community life though legitimising the social mechanics at one end. On the other to establish an unquestioned command over the resource zones spread over regions with indigenous populations.

Therefore a complete enslavement of social, cultural, political and economic nature remained part of the overall diabolic design. This could easily evade the precipitate of geo-centricity of the hitherto-untouchable strata. Another vicious conspiracy is the development of internal colonisation to cohere the Dalits into the upper caste fold in order to continue the historical mode of oppression in new forms and incarnations.
 
Contrary to the status of Dalit, Adivasis were never part of the Varnashram. The life of the Adivasis, a wonderful model of egalitarianism and naturo-centricity, who had a lively past in proximity and harmony with nature are today a target, given the mode of ‘development’ being adopted. Unlike Dalits, they have hardly experienced the life of slavery. Uprooting them from their natural habitats and uprooting them from their culture was and is part and parcel of this concocted design.
 
The result is that an egalitarian society is being transformed into an exploited class. Jharkhand, Odisha and Bastar are the best examples that reflect the impact of such trends and processes. Thus both Dalits and Adivasis have been placed in the category of exploited strata. Earlier these aspects were efficiently engineered through the socio-religious structures, but today it is taking significant political formations too, which in fact is resulting in the communalisation of the polity and the  inculcation of the culture of fascism among the indigenous masses.
 

Dalits and Adivasis – the Logical Targets

Communal-fascism has been exploring its way to elaborate its base, activities and action by building of philanthropic and religious institutions other than the ones mentioned above. Institutions like Deen Dayal Shodh Sansthan, Sanskriti Bihar, Vikas Bharit, Gayatri Pariwar, Brahmakumari Samaj and Samajik Samarasta Manch are some of the intervention points to create inroads among the Dalits and Adivasis.
 
Such institutions essentially engage in the recruitment of young boys from these communities into the cadres of the RSS, Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP; International Hindu Council), Bajrang Dal,  and arming them with hatred and intolerance against minorities. Another plot has been the steady and systematic capturing of the community panchayats and organisations.
 
Mobilising Dalits and Adivasis against Muslims in Gujarat (2002), operations such as ghar wapasi andolan (return to home movement or reconversion movement) in Chhattisgarh, Odisha and Jharkhand or the creation of vigilante army like Salwa Judum (peace movement) are the  clearest examples where there has been a complete stranglehold.
 
All these have added impelling force to the Hindutva card among Dalits and Adivasis. By and large this consists of concepts like de-Dalitisation and de-Adivasisation. Eventually this tendency empowers the fascist forces and broadens its space and influence.
 
This expansion of fascism is disintegrating the Dalit-Adivasi ideology, theology, identity and threatening their very existence. This has also ruptured the sense of community, affected more communitarian notions of sharing, caring and co-operation, has expanded more entrenched notions of patriarchy and battered the belief in community ownership over resources and every single aspect of commons property.
 

To Conclude…

Never before in history have we witnessed such a concerted and deliberate disempowerment of Dalits and Adivasis. The ideology of Hindutva is backed by a formidable organisation and techniques of mobilisation methods that have successes in crushing the energy of people or diverted them from their own struggles for rights and emancipation; their ability to resist injustice. It is in this context that the case of Rohith turns more prominent.
 
It is clear that without fighting the forces that represent Hindutva, both ideologically and politically, the legacy of Rohith Vemula cannot be carried forward. The larger challenge lies in envisioning and struggling for a caste free society. The Indian constitution has tried to effect an internal reform of Hinduism, outlawing untouchability but not caste. Its half way measures have failed to stop caste brutality against Dalits. In the meanwhile caste domination has acquired newer forms in the seemingly modern institutions of the market, within the bureaucracy, within schools and universities.
 
These political successes of Hindutva have grown out of the casteism, patriarchy, insecurities and superstitions of an accepted ‘Hindu’ common sense. It is high time social forces fighting against Hindutva realise its casteist core, and understand the nature of its assault on anything that is different or radical. The specific patterns and form of Dalit oppression in modern India need to be confronted head on. The nature of injuries the caste system inflicts on sensitive spirits in modern spaces is largely unpredictable; often a means of ‘ramified oppression’, where human rights and alienation turn out to be the core of it.
 
The big challenge is to continuously engage with the liberation movement and shatter the vice-like grip of caste on Indian society. Under these  circumstances, where humanitarian norms and values are degenerating and the indigenous people stand at the receiving end, is it possible for us to go back to the communities and unveil the wolf inside the goat’s skin?
 
Dr. Ambedkar had shown the way by burning Manusmruti. Do we have the courage to engage? Can the Adivasis rediscover their own sense of socialist, secular, democratic and decentralised egalitarianism?
 

References

George, GM (2006). Fascism Versus Indigenous People; accessed from www.countercurrents.org/dalit-george020906.htm on November 10, 2013
Golwalkar, MS (1939). We or Our Nationhood Defined; Nagpur: Bharat Publications.
Golwalkar, MS (2000), Bunch of Thoughts; Third Edition 1996 (reprint 2000) Sahitya Sindhu Prakashana, Bangalore
Islam, S. (Undated) Undoing India: The RSS Way; Accessed from http://sanjeev.sabhlokcity.com/Misc/Shamsul%20Islam-Undoing_India-the_RSS_Way.pdf on November 14, 2013
Islamic Voice (1998). Vande Mataram – A Historical Perspective. 12 (144) December
Puniyani, R (2006). MS Golwalkar: Conceptualising Hindutva Fascism; accessed from www.countercurrents.org/comm-puniyani100306.htm on November 9, 2013
Ramaswami, S (2003). Hedgewar and RSS – Revising History in the light of BJP Perception; The Statesman, 26 June
Savarkar, VD (1924). Essentials of Hindutva; accessed from http://www.savarkar.org/content/pdfs/en/essentials_of_hindutva.v001.pdf on November 10, 2013
Thaper, R (2004). The Future of the Indian Past; Seventh DT Lakdawala Memorial Lecture, 21 February, New Delhi: Institute of Social Sciences.

*Goldy M. George is an activist for Dalit and Adivasi rights for the past 25 years. He holds a PhD in Social Science from the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. The author can be contacted at goldymgeorge10@gmail.com)   

The post How Rohith Vemula was an Obstacle to Hindutva’s Hegemonic Agenda appeared first on SabrangIndia.