The practice of human untouchability, anti-dignity of labour and women’s inequality have deep roots in Sanatana Dharma. Yet, the BJP wants Sanatana Dharma as the eternal law of this karma bhoomi.

Tamil Nadu Minister Udayanidhi Stalin

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd

12 Sep 2023

Sanatana Dharma was a religion of three castes in ancient and medieval north India—Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Banias—and it has now become a religion of five castes with the inclusion of Kayasthas and Khatris. Sanatana Dharma defined production as pollution and kept the Dwija castes (who wear janeu) outside. Shudras/Dalits and Adivasis were defined as slaves, Mlecchas and Vanavasis. In other words, Sanatana Dharma was/is against production, Shudras and women. Any other definition of Sanatana Dharma is unsustainable.

Sanatana Dharma has been defended by BJP’s top ministers Amit Shah, Rajnath Singh and Nirmala Sitharaman, apart from the party president JP Nadda and Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma. Sanatana Dharma was an ancient philosophy of Brahmanism, with its roots in Rigveda. It evolved through other Sanskrit texts. By the time Manu Dharma was composed, the practice and spiritual theories of Brahmin writers got synthesised as “Sanatana Dharma,” which stood against productive labour and productive social mass—Shudras, Chandalas and Vanavasis. Now, the BJP’s top ministers and leaders have owned that philosophy as theirs.

Addressing a press conference, BJP’s senior spokesperson Ravishankar Prasad defined Sanatana Dharma as eternal law. According to him, those who oppose it will face consequences. How can all Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis accept this? Finally, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said, “It needs a proper response.” 

Now, the cat is out of the bag. The BJP is for Sanatana Dharma, which is nothing but Manu Dharma, which is also nothing but Brahminism of ancient mode. The theory that production is pollution has its roots in Sanatana Dharma itself. Though it looks as if the Union government has declared war against Udhayanidhi Stalin, a young man of 45 years, it is a classical mode of war against all Shudras/Dalits and Adivasis.

This weapon, ‘Sanatana Dharma’ held by the Union government, is to show all Shudras/Dalits/Adivasis their place in the 21st century. In ancient times, it was a spiritual weapon against Shudra agrarian producers. Today, it is against all three categories (Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi) of wealth producers. It is the weapon of Brahmin, Bania, Kayastha and the Khatri and Kshatriya rulers from Delhi against the majority voters of India.

From Hinduism back to Sanatana

Hinduism is known as a way of life with various spiritual paths. It is also controlled by Brahminism through temple and religious practices. However, the name Hinduism to the religion, like the name India to the country, was also given by colonial rulers. Perhaps, along with India, the BJP wants to discard the name ‘Hinduism’ too. That is good. Both these changes suit their ‘parampara’ theory.

This newly revived ancient Sanatana ideology became BJP’s core while attacking Udhayanidhi Stalin and the INDIA alliance. Udhayanidhi, the grandson of Karunanidhi and son of MK Stalin, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, suddenly became an all-India Dravidian ideological hero with a firm stand against Sanatana Dharma.

A temple priest puts a bounty on Udhayanidhi’s head. The BJP is silent about it. Such violent fatwas, known only in the Islamic world, are now extended to Bharat, and the BJP seems to approve of the Sanatana cultural fatwas. Sanatana Dharma forced kings to cut the tongues of Shudras who tried to learn Sanskrit and pour lead into their ears if they heard Sanskrit shlokas.

What did Udhayanidhi say?

Udhayanidhi addressed a conference organised in Chennai by the Tamil Nadu Progressive Writers and Artists Association on ‘Eradication of Sanatana’ on September 2, 2023. He said, “Some things cannot be opposed. They should only be abolished. We can’t oppose dengue, mosquitoes, malaria, or coronavirus. We have to eradicate this. That’s how we have to eradicate Sanatana. Rather than opposing Sanatana, it should be eradicated.” 

Udhayanidhi defined Sanatana Dharma as an ideology of caste inequality and anti-social justice. The BJP ministers have defined Sanatana Dharma as eternal law. Though it is well-known that Sanatana Dharma describes caste hierarchy – Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra – and the Shudras (including Dalits) as slaves in ancient times, the BJP ministers are projecting the historical category Sanatana is for everyone who is not a Muslim or Christian perhaps. Quite strange.

Sanatana Dharma and Varna Dharma

Sanatana Dharma was a combination of Varna Dharma and Varnashrama Dharma, as it was formulated in ancient Sanskrit books. Varna Dharma was meant to give all the authority only to Dwijas – Brahmins, Ksatriyas and Vaishyas – in ancient times. The Dwija category has two more castes Kayasthas and Khatris, added to it. All five castes refuse to do any productive work even now. They forced the Shudras, Chandalas and Vanavasis to work without expecting phala (wage) in ancient days. That was their duty. Now they receive some wages, but the Dwijas have a huge surplus. 

According to the Varnashrama Dharma, the Dwijas must learn in school in childhood, run a family life in youth and in old age, involve themselves in penance.

The present Shudras/Dalits/Adivasis are not allowed to study in Sanskrit theological schools and they cannot become priests in Hindu temples. Even now, the situation remains unchanged. Yet, the BJP wants Sanatana Dharma as the eternal law of this karma bhoomi.

A war against Shudras/Dalits and Adivasis

The focus of RSS/BJP seems to have shifted from Muslims and Christians to Shudra/Dalit/Adivasis. After Independence, whether during the Congress regime or now during the BJP regime, the idea of Sanatana Dharma was understood as anti-Shudra/Dalit/Adivasis of India. The practice of human untouchability, anti-dignity of labour and women’s inequality have deep roots in Sanatana Dharma. After the Vedic texts, Manu Dharma synthesised the ideology of Sanatana Dharma. Dr Ambedkar and Periyar Ramasamy Naikar deeply analysed the whole process. Hence, Periyar attacked Manu Dharma, and Ambedkar burnt it as it represented Sanatana Dharma.

For a long time, the Congress protected the Sanatana ideology under the garb of secularism. But the RSS-controlled BJP wants to preserve such Sanatana by declaring war on the very idea of abolition of caste, untouchability, and indignity of labour from Delhi. The same BJP wanted to twist the arms of Shudra agrarian farmers through farm laws, but they fought back. Now, they want to attack the Dravidian strong anti-Sanatana Dharma base. That is why a young man’s critique of Sanatana Dharma was twisted as genocidal and blown out of proportion by Dwija forces in Delhi. The whole Union government is geared around this issue.

This is not a war against Muslims or Christians now. It is a war against the rising political and social forces of Shudras/Dalits and Adivasis by modern Brahminism. It is clear that the ruling BJP’s IT cell head Amit Malviya, deliberately twisted Udhayanidhi’s speech as genocide of 80% of people, as if Shudras/Dalits/Adivasis are part of it. This is a conscious step by a big ruling Hindutva party.

Dharma is not justice 

The concept of Dharma has been twisted to mean justice. No, it never was equivalent to justice in the ancient Greek or European sense. Under this, the Shudras had to follow the caste rules framed by Brahmins and remain slaves and agrarian workers in Vedic times. It also meant that the Dwijas would never participate in productive labour as production was seen as pollution.

Leave alone the Shudra/Dalit/Adivasis, women of all castes have no place in Sanatana Dharma, and they suffered barbaric exploitation and superstitions that Sanatana Dharma imposed. The Shudra/OBC/Dalit/Adivasis working in the BJP/RSS have to seriously examine this new development. A few may enjoy powerful positions without any ideological control over the system by accepting Sanatana Dharma, but the majority of productive masses will be pushed back to the dark ages. If they do not resist such open support to Sanatana Dharma by the top ministers, who openly own such ideology and attack critiques of the primitive ideology, then the nation will go into a period of dark history.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book The Shudras: Vision For a New Path, co-edited with Karthik Raja Kuruppusamy, has put forth a powerful argument that without the cooperation of Shudras with Dalits and Adivasis, caste inequality and oppression cannot be changed. Views expressed here are the author’s own.

In conversation with Articles 15 and 16 

KANCHA ILAIAH SHEPHERD·AUGUST 15, 2023

Shudras are the single-largest caste group in India, and there are more Shudras than all other castes and religions combined. Yet they remain a largely marginalised group because of lack of strong leadership and their exploitation by dvija Hindus in their fight against Muslims and Christians, argues Kancha Ilaiah in this piece. 

—

BEFORE India adopted a democratic Constitution in 1950, the masses in the country had no idea that religion could be thought as part of the legal system.

After the formation of a civil society and a State in Indian history, the Indian Constitution marked the first instance when the idea of a right to religion was defined in Indian history.

No Indian philosopher wrote a comprehensive theory of the right to religion. Though there were many kinds of religious practices for centuries in this country, the notion of a right was not applied either for an individual or for a social group. It was never defined. 

For example, the idea of religious sentiment was not known in India before the nationalist discourse was deployed around Hinduism and Islam.

Where do Shudras fit into the whole constitutional language? Before Ambedkar came to the scene, Dalits were also in the same predicament. Socially they were placed in the worst position.

Article 25 of the Indian Constitution states that: “Subject to public order, morality and health … all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.”

Further, Article 26 provides that all denominations can manage their own affairs in religious matters. The Article only talks about people who are consciously organised into a religion with equal spiritual rights. The concept “denomination” may mean a Vaishnavite, Shaivite, Catholic, Protestant, Shia or Sunni.

But where do Shudras fit into this whole constitutional language? Before Ambedkar came to the scene, Dalits were also in the same predicament. Socially they were placed in the worst position.

Now Dalits broadly identify themselves with Buddhism. The Adivasis had their own life without much control of Brahmanism over them. Gradually, the Adivasis turned towards Christianity.

Right now, we are witness to a conflict between Christian Adivasis and Hindutva Brahmanism in Manipur. The right to Christianity and Islam have been challenged by the Hindutva forces right from the days of the freedom struggle. The propaganda against these two religions was started by Brahmin intellectuals.

K.B. Hedgewar, M.S. Golwalkar and V.D. Savarkar were well-known Brahmin pioneers of Hindutva propaganda in the early days. Mohan Bhagwat and Dattatreya Hosabale of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) continue their legacy today. Not a single Shudra or Dalit intellectual was integrated into the list, as the communities were mainly drawn into communal wars by Brahmanic intellectualism.

Puzzling Shudra predicament

Nothing in Article 25 solves the problem of Shudras who are now being defined as Hindu by Brahmin thinkers without giving them any spiritual rights that a religion has to give to its members.

Nothing in Article 25 solves the problem of Shudras who are now being defined as Hindu by Brahmin thinkers without giving them any spiritual rights that a religion has to give to its members.

Since Shudras have not yet produced thinkers who could understand their status in ‘Hinduism’, Brahmins and other dvijas (twice-borns) who control that religion are very safe when there is no intellectual force among Shudras.

To ensure long-term control over Shudras, Brahmins prohibited them from learning Sanskrit. Shudras are running the so-called majoritarian campaign against Muslims and Christians as minorities because Brahmins and other dvijas put Shudras in the basket of Hinduism to ensure they have massive muscle power at their command.

Shudras constitute around 52 percent of India’s population and once they challenge the definition of ‘Hinduism’ allotted to them, the efforts of the reigning powers to exploit their muscle power for violent acts and vote power for systematic control will ultimately collapse.

The consciousness of Shudras, who follow the Brahmanic diktat as a loyal social force, is puzzling. Though they have no spiritually equal rights with Brahmins and other dvijas,they follow any theory that Brahmin intellectuals propose.

Even though Shudras are a historical community, they have been unable to formulate a ‘freedom of conscience’. They follow a Brahmin-imposed conscience sans the right to examine whether a religion where Hinduism is restricted to Brahmanism would liberate them. They never pondered the question whether they would attain moksha (liberation) through this religion.

A small section of Indian Christians and Muslims knew what religion meant for them in reference to the Bible or the Quran respectively. However, even the masses in these faiths were credulous to believe what was injected into their consciousness and practised by priests and mullahs.

The saving grace is that in these religions, the path for religious intellectualism is not blocked for any community or caste.

First major debate on religion

A national-level debate about religions took place during the freedom struggle among the English-educated intellectuals of India. Mahatma Gandhi led the Hindu discourse and Mohammed Ali Jinnah led the Muslim discourse. 

Gandhi wrote about his views on Hinduism but Jinnah did not write much on Islam. He seemed to have depended only on oral arguments on behalf of the Muslims.

Since Shudras have not yet produced thinkers who could understand their status in ‘Hinduism’, Brahmins and other dvijas (twice-borns) who control that religion are very safe when there is no intellectual force among Shudras.

The third idea with a concrete written argument was put forth by Dr B.R Ambedkar. In Gandhi’s Hindu discourse, all castes, including untouchables, were Hindu. 

He never raised the issue of Shudra agrarian mass status in that religion. By then Shudras were allowed to enter Brahmanic temples (it is wrong to call them Hindu temples).

Also read: Significance of caste discrimination ban in Seattle

Shudras also had their own agrarian gods and goddesses temples. They had no other spiritual rights in what Gandhi called Hinduism. They had no right to Sanskrit gurukul education, no right to priesthood, no right to interpret the spiritual texts. 

Such rights are central to any religion.

Many Brahmin intellectuals were fully involved in constructing Muslims and Christians as enemies. Shudras did not know what was happening in the intellectual domain. They followed the Brahmin priest’s guidance in the temple and general intellectual guidance in the civil society.

Dr Ambedkar’s dilemma

Dr Ambedkar wrote about the harrowing status of Shudras, based on Sanskrit texts and ideologies of varna-dharma. However, like Gandhi, Ambedkar considered Shudras to be Hindus, even dvijas, in his book, Who Were the Shudras?

He gradually delved deeper into determining the rights of Untouchables, and later amalgamated Shudras in a broader category of ‘caste Hindus’.

Contemporary universal religions like Christianity gave its followers a fundamental right to be an integral part of the religion, but Dr Ambedkar never examined this element to the core in the Indian context, perhaps due to the baggage of colonialism it carried.

British rulers were largely regarded as Christians, and Christianity, as against the Hindu spiritual system, remained largely unexplored.

By then, Islam in India had become feudal and oligarchic. Ashrafs, Mughals and Pathans dominated the religious community in the absence of a broad theory of public education and practice.

On the contrary, Indian Christianity became the source of English-medium education for all Brahmin, Baniya, Kayastha, Khatri and Kshatriya leaders.

In the medical sector, Christian missionary hospitals were the only option for the dvijas. The so-called Brahmanic ayurveda could not reach even all of the dvijas in India, let alone Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis.

No dvija writer, Gandhi included, wrote anywhere about the Christian seva centres. Pandita Ramabai understood the importance of both the advancements brought in by Christian missionary hospitals and the attempts by Brahmin intellectuals to side-line these advancements, and moved into Christianity, becoming a great social service leader despite her Brahmin background.

No Shudra intellectual of the stature of Dr Ambedkar, Gandhi or Nehru emerged from the Shudras during the freedom struggle. After Mahatma Jyotirao Phule and Savitribai Phule, Periyar Ramasamy rose as a prominent figure in the South as a Dravida activist leader rather than a theoretician. In the wake of the global communist wave, Periyar turned to atheism. 

Patel’s indifference to intellectualism

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was the tallest Shudra leader in the freedom movement, but he did not fight the dvijas. 

He became a follower of Gandhi, having accepted that he was also a Hindu like the Baniyas and Brahmins of Gujarat. However, Patels were not considered Hindus.

Dr Ambedkar wrote about the harrowing status of Shudras, based on Sanskrit texts and ideologies of varna-dharma. However, like Gandhi, Ambedkar considered Shudras to be Hindus, even dvijas, in his book, Who Were the Shudras?

They were humiliated by Brahmin Baniyas who treated them as Shudra agrarian tillers, and considered tilling the land to be polluting work. Jain Baniyas from Gujarat treated it to be violent work.

Also read: Why we must annihilate caste to save Indian democracy

If Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel were to ever ask Gandhi, a proponent of the varna-dharma system, whether Shudras could be considered Hindus without having the right to send their children to Hindu theological schools, or to become priests in temples, or to own ‘dakshina’ (repayment) economy, which was under Brahmanic control, Gandhi would have been forced to rethink his Hindu majoritarian idea. 

At that time, Shudras did not even have the right to engage in business, which was under the control of Baniyas. Gandhi himself belonged to the Baniya business heritage and forced vegetarianism on Shudras, who were historically meat-eaters. Patel silently followed Gandhi on the path of food conversion, too.

If Shudras were to state that they were not Hindus, as it is a religion only for the dvijas, then the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and RSS would not have amassed the power that they hold today. 

Shudras catalysed the dvija majoritarian mobilisation by accepting the definition of Hinduism given to them, i.e., that all non-Muslims and non-Christians are Hindus.

The underlying issue was that even the Indian National Congress was under the control of the dvijas and Shudras lacked a creative, bold and intellectual leader to assess their position among the Hindus and in political parties. They were intimidated by the tyrannical spiritual authority of Brahmins for millennia.

Need for a Shudra leader

Both the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS were purely dvija organisations headed by Brahmins and funded by Hindu and Jain Baniyas since their inception. Leading businesses were controlled by Baniyas and Parsis during the freedom struggle, who treated Shudras and Dalits as Untouchables.

Dr Ambedkar’s humiliating encounter in Baroda, where he was forced to leave a Parsi inn because he was a Dalit, is a prime example of the status of the lower castes, even though he had a rich educational background.

Shudras had no religious power or control over businesses back then and the situation persists even today. They have negligible political power in some regions where feudal Shudras established regional parties but they have no Central power.

Where were the Shudras in the temple economy and business economy? Nowhere. The temple economy even today mostly gets controlled by Brahmins and the big business economy is in the hands of Baniyas.

Shudras, by and large, work in the agrarian sector and India’s agrarian civilisation remains mostly undocumented in Brahmanic Sanskrit literature. If there were any highly English-educated pioneers among the Shudras, such as Dr Ambedkar, they would have condemned the ‘Hinduism’ given to them.

If a Shudra leader were to give them an identity different from Brahmins, Baniyas, Kayasthas, Khatris and Kshatriyas, who shared the right to wear a sacred thread, read Sanskrit books, and study Sanskrit in gurukulas (traditional schools), the present idea of Hindu majority would not have shaped up.

No Shudras in cultural nationalism

Members of the RSS have been propagating that they want to build the future of the nation centred around their ideology of cultural nationalism found in ancient Sanskrit books. 

Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel was the tallest Shudra leader in the freedom movement, but had no formal training to read, write or fight.

The question is, do Adivasis, Dalits and Shudras, as historical communities, exist in Sanskrit books? Is there an ancient Sanskrit book about their life and contribution to society?

The Ramayana and the Mahabharata are the most widely read ancient Sanskrit books, which speak of Brahmin rishis (sages) and Kshatriya kings. Both these books are centred around wars and the morality that emerged from the terrain of war.

The narratives of agrarian production and artisanal life are disregarded.

There is no narrative of agrarian production and artisanal life in these books. Shudra, Dalit and Adivasi communities do not exist in the textual Kruta and Dwapara yugas.

Without Shudra and Dalit labourers, what did the saints and kings eat? Who built their castles, their homes and produced technology for their wars? Does the war culture of Brahmins and Kshatriyas solely represent an entire civilisation?

How does culture formulate itself without a narrative of production, the social relations during the process of production and their distribution?

A war zone does not construct culture, but the production field does. However, this production field finds no trace in any Sanskrit books. 

Right from the days of building the Indus Valley civilisation, the agricultural and artisanal work of Dalits and Shudras built the Indian civilisation as a whole, rather than the wars of Brahmins and Kshatriyas.

The nation’s survival and growth are attributed to the efforts of Shudras and Dalits who inhabited the forests and focused on improving agriculture, animal husbandry and artisanal technology.

Brahmins, Baniyas, Kayasthas, Khatris and Kshatriyas played no role in any of the domains of production. They controlled Shudras and Dalits through the Brahmin varna-dharma system, which is now termed the Hindu dharma. They have started modern religious wars through their religious dogmas.

The muscle power of Shudras and Dalits was exploited in communal riots in Gujarat, Delhi and many other cities. Today, the Hindu Meitei tribe’s muscle power is being used against the Christian Kuki tribe in Manipur.

RSS’s Brahmin-run shakhas

The RSS and Hindutva forces refuse to use Brahmanism as an ideological category. They use the ‘Hindu’ category to carry Shudras with them and run shakhas (Hindu theological schools) to train Shudras in lathi rolling and physical fights.

If the RSS, as a Hindu organisation, wants a caste-free Hindu religious system, it should run Hindu shakhas and train all youth for temple priesthood and ritualist activities. However, this domain is completely entrusted to the Brahmins who run gurukulas and train only Brahmin youth. 

Shudras are not allowed to raise any questions about spiritual social equality in the system devised by the RSS.

Despite regional Shudras having land ownership, wealth and State power, their history remains short-lived as there is no intellectual leader among them.

Apart from the Brahmin youth, Baniyas, Kshatriyas, Khatris and Kayasthas also do not get admission into the gurukulas but receive other benefits from the Brahmin religious structure.

It is in the best interests of the RSS and the dvijas to maintain the caste system, while Dalits and Shudras continue to be the main targets, owing to their labour and muscle power against the minorities.

Dalits have come to realise this and have converted to Buddhism and Christianity, making Dr Ambedkar their spiritual liberator. Shudras, however, remained stuck in Brahmanism, a mayavada philosophy that teaches that everything is an illusion.

Temple economy and Shudra rights

Shudras visit temples and give money to priests as dakshina, as they do not have the right to priesthood in Brahmin-run temples. They are also unaware about the extent of money collected in the temples, and how it is put to use.

The Sanskrit education imparted in gurukulas and the temple economy are interlinked with the system, as Baniyas conduct business in temple towns. Business establishments are largely controlled by Baniyas, who are at par with Brahmins in terms of their spiritual, social, and financial status. They are integrated into the RSS–BJP power structure now.

Also read: SC rejects Maharashtra’s plea to direct Centre to disclose data on OBCs as per 2011 caste census

In some states where temples are administered by endowment departments under the state governments, the chairperson of the temple trust may hail from a Shudra agrarian background and feel inferior to the head priest of the temple. 

Some temples have massive financial resource mobilisation and priests are paid handsomely. The ruling RSS and BJP forces do not wish to make such powerful priestly positions inclusive.

The Congress’s governance operated under the rubric of secularism, thereby escaping most caste-cultural problems. 

The Nehru family’s control over the Congress was multi-cultural and multi-religious, but the RSS and the BJP have systematically targeted their background, due to which Congress heirs Rahul Gandhi and Priyanka Gandhi are leaning towards the Hinduism fold. Rahul Gandhi claimsthat he is a janeu (sacred thread) wearing Brahmin.

The Congress was virtually run by the dvijas, but Shudras could not construct an identity of their own within the party’s culture, as it consisted mostly of foreign-educated Brahmins without bringing up issues regarding caste and religion. Dvija forces of the RSS and the BJP found their breeding ground during the Congress rule.

A national Shudra-entity movement

It is well-established that Brahmins and Baniyas flourished in all fields, especially in the educational, social, spiritual and economic spheres, whereas the identity of Shudra was completely erased. 

Of the four varnas of ancient Brahmanism— Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Baniyas and Shudras— the Brahmin varna remained in a hegemonic position despite the change in political systems, spanning the monarchic and colonial, and ultimately the democratic rule since 1947.

Baniyas rose to power during the Gupta period in the fifth century CE and again during the freedom struggle, with Mahatma Gandhi fortifying them. Corporate businesses have been in the hands of the Baniyas since 2014 due to Narendra Modi and Amit Shah’s strategies. 

Kshatriyas lost their identity significantly after 1947, but because of Yogi Adityanath and the new Sri Rama (Ram was a Kshatriya king) temple being built in Ayodhya, Kshatriyas will get more visibility. They are trying to consciously organise under the leadership of Yogi Adityanath. 

Shudras must evolve their spiritual system by renouncing ‘Hinduism’ if they remain shorn of their basic religious rights.

As of now the Shudras are a more fragmented and regionalised social mass with various caste names based on their occupations. 

Their social links are cut by regional languages and disconnected caste names. Though they have a huge presence in every state, their identity as Shudras is lost. 

A section of them has now obtained a constitutional identity in the form of Other Backward Classes (OBCs). However, the identity is purely related to reservation in jobs and education. This identity does not reflect their history, religious location and civilisational contribution. 

Other dvija castes, such as Baniyas, have also procured OBC certificates by nullifying the historicity of Shudras. Shudra identity-formation has other challenges as well. They are subdivided into reserved Shudras (OBCs) and non-reserved Shudras, who fall in the general category. The latter category comprises Jats, Kammas, Patels, Reddys, Velamas, among others.

Shudras who have gained financial autonomy have not overthrown higher caste English-educated dvijas who work on spiritual, philosophical and historical issues. Middle-class and upper middle-class Shudras are occupied with agricultural activities and the real estate economy.

Some caste leaders from the Kammas, Marathas, Patels, Reddys and Yadavs have their own regional parties with power in states such as Andhra Pradesh, but historical issues pertaining to civilisation, culture and divine agencies remain unaddressed.

Despite regional Shudras having land ownership, wealth and State power, their history remains short-lived as there is no intellectual leader among them.

Persons belonging to Dalit and Adivasi communities have now gained recognition pan-India. Dalits question of Untouchability began a global discourse, especially after the Durban United Nations conference on ‘Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance’ in 2001.

It has led to some US states making anti-caste laws, but Shudras and OBCs have negligible recognition internationally.

In my opinion, Shudras need a unified movement for spiritual equality within modern Brahmanism that is presented as Hinduism. Equality amongst all stratas of society is the need of the hour.

The right to priesthood, admission in theological educational institutions for children and youth, and employment on an equal basis in ‘Hindu religious institutions’ should be prioritised.

Right to priesthood must include the right to head the prominent Shaivite peethas, such as peethas and mathas established by Adi Shankaracharya, the eighth century Brahmin revivalist. 

Shudras must evolve their spiritual system by renouncing ‘Hinduism’ if they remain shorn of their basic religious rights.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book, The Shudras: Vision for a New Path co-edited with Karthik Raja Karuppusamy, examined many issues of Shudras. Currently, he is also working on a book titled, The Shudra Rebellion: History from the Field Memories.

The right to religion and the Shudra predicament

Maoist, pro-Mandal, Ambedkarite, Dalit, and Buddhist—Telangana poet Gaddar was the face of many struggles in India.

KANCHA ILAIAH SHEPHERD

Telangana poet Gaddar | PTI

Telangana folk singer Gaddar, born Gummadi Vittal Rao, also popularly known as ‘people’s singer’ and ‘Praja Yuddha Nauka’, died on 6 August in Hyderabad. Leaving aside my decades-long friendship with Gaddar in the larger people’s movements, the poet was an organic legend as a lyricist and singer belonging to the productive masses who reflected the power and pain of labour and humanity.

A Maoist, pro-Telangana movement and pro-Mandal activist, politician, Dalit, and later an Ambedkarite and Buddhist — Gaddar was the face of many struggles.

A life of struggle

The poet’s most famous song, which he wrote when he was still maturing as an organic lyricist and singer in the 1970s, goes as follows:

“Sirimalle Chettukinda Lachumammo, Lachumamma

Yuvvu Chinaboyi Kusunna Vendukammo

(O mother Lachumamma, Why are you sitting

Under jasmine tree with such a sad face and body)”

This song depicts Gaddar’s mother’s life of labour and all its torture when she worked on a paddy field yet wasn’t paid and starved for days. It moved readers.

Gaddar belonged to a Marathi (Mahar) Dalit family that migrated to Hyderabad. His father, Toopran, an Ambedkarite, educated him and admitted him into the prestigious University of Engineering, affiliated with Osmania University, in the early 1970s.

But Gaddar didn’t complete his course — he was soon drawn into radical student movements and dropped out of college, taking up a job as a clerk at a national bank only to leave it soon after. Then he became a full-time singer associated with the communist revolutionary struggle, popularly known as the Naxalite movement.

Gaddar gradually came to be recognised as the face of the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) or CPI(ML) through his songs, which he sang in the streets, at public gatherings, and before audiences numbering in lakhs — mobilising all. He took India’s cultural realm by storm with his new genre in which he wrote and sang about agrarian productive masses and exploitation in novel style. For a long time, his alternative to the existing corrupt system was only the armed revolution.

The poet adopted the name ‘Gaddar’ as a tribute to the pre-Independence Gadar party, which opposed British rule in Punjab. The moniker soon became the Indian symbol of Maoist struggles. The songs that Gaddar wrote on the red flag, guerilla strategies, and armed struggles shook the State apparatus.

In 1997, the folk singer was shot by five unknown assailants at his Venkatapuram residence in Secunderabad. While surgeons managed to take out four bullets from his body, one had gotten lodged into his spinal cord that they didn’t remove to avoid further complications — and the poet reportedly called it a “symbol of State repression”. The bullet sat within his body till he died.

The Dalit course

A man of courage, conviction, wit, and humility, and yet was childlike, Gaddar felt strongly for the Dalit movement. In the 1985 Karamchedu massacre, when Kamma landlords, the dominant caste group in coastal Andhra Pradesh, brutally murdered six Dalits and raped three Dalit women, he wrote a mass mobilising song that went as follows:

“Karamchedu Bhoosamulatoti Kalebadi Nilabadi

Poruchesina Dalit Pululamma

(The Dalit tiger that fought against Karamachedu

Landlords like tiger)”

This song became a weapon to mobilise Dalits in the entire state. From then onwards, Gaddar started writing songs on untouchability, Ambedkarism, and constitutionalism.

The poet’s sympathies for the Dalit cause heightened in 1990 when Mandal Commission protests erupted all over the country and the VP Singh government received heavy criticism. Social justice versus merit had become the ideological anchors of pro- and anti-Mandal forces. Even the communist revolutionaries under the leadership of mostly upper castes wavered and avoided a clear stand.

Arun Shourie, who was then the editor of The Indian Express, was leading the anti-Mandal movement. Gaddar responded to Shourie through a song that became a weapon for pro-Mandal forces. It went as follows:

“Arun Shouriego Neeku Akaali Bademeruka

Neyyi Kada Nuvvunte Piyyikada Memuntam

(O Arun Shourie, what do you know about the pain of hunger

You live in the society that eats ghee

Whereas we live a life that lifts your community’s shit)”

The song was disliked by many ‘upper’ caste revolutionaries, but Gaddar went on singing it in public meetings to inspire the marginalised to fight and get reservation implemented.

Toward Telangana movement

Later in the decade, Maoists decided to rekindle the Telangana movement when the Telugu Desam Party was in power. Gaddar became the inspiration for the movement, writing several songs on the exploitation of the state’s resources. His most powerful song had the following lyrics:

Podustunna Poddu Meeda Nadustunna Kalama

Poru Telanganama….Bale… Bale…Bale

(On the rising sun the time is walking

The Telangana struggle is a time walker on the sun)

Today, the song is remembered as the symbol of the Telangana movement. Although Gaddar was never an open supporter of the Telangana Rashtra Samithi (now Bharat Rashtra Samithi), he led parallel radical pro-Telangana groups with Maoist support.

Despite his Maoist sympathies, Gaddar differed with the ideology on one aspect — class struggle was not enough, caste struggle should be taken up too. He saw the several strengths of the Constitution. The singer tried to convince Maoists to change their approach toward the Constitution and BR Ambedkar. Obviously, they refused to change their old line of class struggle.

Gaddar exited the CPI(ML), dissociated from the Maoists around 2010, and started working with other forces to defend the Constitution.

After the Telangana state was carved out in 2014, Gaddar moved closely with diverse political and ideological forces. Several cases against him  — filed when he was a Maoist — still lay pending. His health was getting precarious. For some time, he worked with the Bahujan Left Front (BLF), supported by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) supported, along with me. But at the same time, he maintained good relations with the Congress, participating in public meetings that Rahul Gandhi conducted in the state. Gaddar met Rahul and Sonia Gandhi in Delhi too.

Gaddar’s life was a saga of restless wandering, singing his own songs except for two that he popularised. One was Bandenaka Bandikatti (Bullock cart after bullock cart), a famous one against the Nizam and written by Yadagari during the anti-Razakar and Nizam struggle in the 1940s.

The second one was Vuru Manadira, which had the following lyrics:

“Eevuru Mandira, Eevada Mandira

Dora Yendiro Vani Peekudendiro

(This village is ours, this locality is ours

Who is this landlord, What is his torture over us)”

This song was written by another famous Dalit singer and writer, Guda Anjaiah, during the revolutionary movement in the early 1970s. Gaddar took this song to almost every village in Andhra Pradesh. As he kept singing the chorus at processions, thousands would join him, charging up the feudal atmosphere in the villages and towns.

Gaddar was both a sophisticated and rustic thinker. When he turned toward Ambedkarism, he wrote several ballads against the caste system and untouchability. A feminist, he wrote philosophical songs on women’s life, labour, and humanity, speaking against kitchen drudgery and the pain of cleaning streets and homes. His song on the great service of the broom conveys deep meanings.

Gaddar adopted Buddhism, leaving his earlier communist affinities, to follow in the footsteps of Ambedkar.

The folk singer is buried in the school compound that he built for poor children. Gaddar’s love for equality and his songs that talk about the struggle for liberation will remain.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book is The Shudras—Vision For a New Path co-edited with Karthik Raja Karuppusamy. He is currently working on a book, The Shudra Rebellion—History From Field Memories. Views are personal.

Telangana poet Gaddar, who told Maoists class struggle wasn’t enough—caste was important too

The third engine, the most critical one, systematically divides people into majority and minority at the ground level in every state, like in Manipur, writes Kancha Ilaiah.

Written by  Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd

On July 23, 2023, Vardhelli Murali, the Editor of popular Telugu daily Sakshi, wrote a poignant editorial with the title ‘Is my country a naked body?’ He says that Prime Minister Modi keeps talking about a double engine government in states where the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is in power, with the support of the Centre, a second engine. Murali says actually there are three engines at work in Manipur. Writing about the horrendous incident in which Kuki Christian women were paraded naked and one of them gangraped in Manipur, he said in whichever state the BJP is in power, the governments are run with ‘Triple Engine’ power. The third engine is the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS).

The third engine systematically divides people into majority and minority at the ground level in every state. This engine is the most critical engine which works out ways and means to divide people on religious lines. Earlier they used to divide for ideological purposes. From the formation of the BJP/RSS-led Union government in 1999, they started using the mechanism for electoral purposes. More particularly, from the 2014 elections a massive anti-minority campaign was taken up all over the country. Muslims and Christians are mainly targeted. Very well organised Hindutva forces keep using all kinds of attack strategies. They use methods of isolation, generate fear among them, and finally use violence as a last resort to create a superior notion of control among the supporting majority. There were rumours that in the North-Eastern states dividing ethnic groups based on whether they were Christian or non-Christian had been going on for quite a long time. After the 2014 elections, the RSS/BJP acquired control over the local state apparatus and the faultlines deepened.

In Manipur, as per available data, around 53 percent population are Meiteis and the remaining consists of Kukis and Nagas, who are similar in numbers. While around 95 percent of Kukis and Nagas are Christian, among the Meiteis only 2-3 percent are so. The Hindutva forces seem to think that the Christian influence was growing even among Meitetis, therefore, they wanted to checkmate the religious transformation. They seem to have started  first by organising Meiteis into a strong Hindu force. At the same time, the Kukis and Nagas of the state remained either loyal Christians or did Ghar Vapsi. Yet another major idea was to recognise the Hindu Meiteis as STs so that they get land rights and Government jobs. This is a Hindutva package to de-Christianise the North East. It is a long term project. The Manipur Chief Minister Biren Singh, it appears, is given the task of allowing the organised Hindu Meiteis to do the job.Featured Videos from TNM

Murali says this method was first used in Gujarat during the first phase of the second engine in control of Delhi. The Opposition, particularly, is wrong when they say only Narendra Modi is responsible for what is happening during his Prime Ministership, while leaving the most powerful ‘Third Engine’ out of the political discourse. Modi is handling the second engine with a bigger power than Vajpayee is a fact. But without the ‘Third Engine’ getting involved both the Union and the State governments cannot make use of the Hindutva apparatus like the one which is at work in Manipur. It is the ‘Third Engine’ that tells the Chief Ministers what to do and what not to do. One of the key directions is in the charter of ‘What Not to Do’ . In the states, the machinery should standby following the theory of ‘What to Do’. They should not stop the Hindutva forces from its ideological actions under the theory of ‘What Not to Do’. After Gujarat we have seen Karnataka. Now Manipur has the same theories operating.

The behaviour of the men who made the Kuki Christian women walk naked needed training to be merciless. One of them was brutally raped. The PM condemned the incident once the videos of that scene shook the world. But the RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat did not speak a word against that brutality. The organisation earlier issued a general statement that normalcy should be restored in Manipur. However, in the background of the video of the brutal incident, he made a statement:

“Many times negative discussions are heard. But when we go around the country and see, then we come to know that there is 40 times more discussion about the good things that are happening.”

Without even condemning the anti-women nature of the incident, the Sarchanlak talks about ‘40 times more good things’. Since the three engines worked in synergy in Manipur, shall the Hindutva forces that were involved in that act want those women to do Ghar Vapasi? Should our cultural nation praise the forces that paraded indigenous Christian women naked and raped one to teach them a lesson for being born into a ‘foreign’ religion?

The Manipur CM announced that his government will see to it that the victims will get capital punishment. But later they could be released like the 11 convicts in the Bilikis Bano rape case, who were treated as great nationalists in Gujarat.

Many of us fought Indira Gandhi’s Emergency with the fear that dictatorship was imminent. At that time in my state—Andhra Pradesh—it was a double engine Government. Jalagam Vengal Rao was a fully oiled state level conductor of that engine. Killing any serious opponent, particularly young boys or girls, labelling them as dangerous Naxals, was the norm. No police protected them but every officer competed to kill more to get a medal. Double Engine governments were not new. Till 1967 in all states there were Double Engine Congress governments.

But we have never seen a woman being paraded in that brutal state of Emergency. Maybe because a woman was heading the Delhi engine, such an operation was not allowed. Luckily the nation overcame those nightmare days, maybe because there was no ‘Third Engine’ at that time in that political structure.

But now there is no such openly declared emergency in Manipur or in the country. There people are not just getting killed in individual encounters, but getting burnt alive in their own houses and outside.

According to Sarsanchalak Mohan Bhagwat, he is heading an army that can reach any part of India much quicker than the regular army of India. For what purpose should that army be used from power is a critical issue in a multi-religious and multi-caste country like India?  Manipur has shown yet another level of brutal violence which we have never witnessed earlier.

The final act of cultivated violent culture is as Murali said: “My country is made of naked bodies of crying women’. They were not only paraded in the streets, not in night but in day light, and were taken to the fields to be raped. What should the world make of this culture of violence and barbarity?

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book The Shudras: Vision For a New Path, co-edited with Karthik Raja Kuruppusamy, has put forth a powerful argument that without the cooperation of Shudras with Dalits and Adivasis, caste inequality and oppression cannot be changed. Views expressed are the author’s own.

https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/manipur-triple-engine-government-work-180442

American SC judgment quashing affirmative action in universities may inspire anti-reservationists in India, too

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd

In America, white racism got countered by producing black intellectuals from universities, who could construct a counter narrative to racism and influenced policies. Along with America, the whole world benefitted. Image: iStock

The American Supreme Court judgment quashing affirmative action in colleges and universities has opened a new debate on whether racism in America is getting validated in larger civil society again.

Unless the well-educated elite component of the society is multi-racial, racist decisions in administrative structures will not change. Whatever changes had unfolded because of the new intellectual force that entered into various structures of the US administration from multi-cultural and multi-colour social bases, would they not limp back into 21st century racism?

Social justice walking backwards

The Supreme Court took a dangerous decision at a time when the multi-racial America is producing talent in every intellectual field, with which the whole world has been benefitting. The oppressed castes in India were inspired by the Black-Slave intellectualism.

Mahatma Jyotirao Phule dedicated the first-ever written book on Shudra Indians —Gulamgiri — to the Black liberators. Dr BR Ambedkar, who learnt a lot from Black intellectualism, became a liberator of untouchables and worked out an Indian mode of affirmative action — reservations.

Even before the world has yet to become free of racism, America’s highest court blocked the difficult path of intellectual inclusion. This may inspire many anti-reservationists in India and abroad as the Dwija Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) are as anti-reservationists as those who live in India.

A social counter-revolution now is initiated from the highest court of America. The court’s judgment initiates an anti-social justice process. American political philosopher John Rawls gave a model by writing his famous book A Theory of Justice, which made the world think about social justice.

The global judicial institutions learnt a lot from the American Supreme Court and John Rawls. Now the American Supreme Court is moving backwards, by dismantling the idea of social justice.

Indian experience  

Given the history of two national political parties of India, the BJP and the Congress, who opposed reservations during the Mandal and the pre-Mandal times, the Indian reservation system would not have been accepted but for the Black empowerment example.

Our courts too are waiting for the reversal of that policy in America. Now the future of our reservation system seems to be up in the air. Our Brown brothers and sisters love everything American — while chanting Hindu nationalism slogans. They love reversing the reservation system with a new phrase — caste-blind education in the interest of Hindus. The Dalit/OBCs/Adivasis do not even know what will be in store for them.

The often repeated RSS slogan that Hindu traditions should be respected is an indicator for keeping them outside Hindu priesthood and intellectual powerhouse. Dismantling the reservation system will be projected as part of that tradition. The US SC judgement will serve as an epithet.

In America in the post-civil war era, white racism got countered by producing black intellectuals from colleges and universities, who could construct a counter narrative to racism and influenced policies both at the federal and provincial administration levels. With that, along with America, the whole world benefitted.

The modern administrative structures require well educated and trained intellectuals from the universities. With advanced knowledge their courage and confidence would grow. That was what happened in America. Now the judiciary seems to have checkmated it. Quite sadly, of the two black judges (one man and one woman) in the court, the senior judge, Justice Clarence Thomas, went along with the Chief Justice, who has been an opponent of affirmative action for quite some time.

Black woman judge hits back

But Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the court’s first black female justice, chimed: “With let-them-eat-cake obliviousness, today, the majority pulls the ripcord and announces ‘colorblindness for all’ by legal fiat. But deeming race irrelevant in law does not make it so in life.” This is true. Colour blind decisions in the court do not remove colour discrimination in the society that institutionalised colour — slavery for centuries.

Universities and colleges are meant to produce intellectuals who construct new theories and ideas that change human life for the better and by reducing social conflicts and civil wars. America realised this after suffering a civil war in the late nineteenth century. Abraham Lincoln made that possible.

Ever since the affirmative action policy was adopted the American society has produced many black intellectuals who played a key role in changing the world. Where does the reversal take it now?

The problem of admission essay

The American colour students when applying to a college or university course do not fill columns like our reserved category. They write an essay about how their colour played a role in their social, economic and educational life. Their school grades, their social service service while being a student, including labour related work that they undertake while studying in the school count.

Even the rich whites or blacks or Latinos or Asians need to impress the elite educational institutions that they are hardworking, talented enough to get admission. They have to show their concern for poor, disadvantaged children and so on.

The blacks and Latinos get preferential treatment in universities like Harvard, Stanford and Yale, based on their essay which describes their experience with racial discrimination. The universities also take into account their family background, even though in terms of marks they may score less than the other candidates.

The US Supreme Court’s Anti-Preferential Treatment (APT) judgment is expected to cut down the black and Latino admissions by more than 50 per cent of their intake. In other words, the talent that was growing among the former slaves and labouring races will be reduced.

Caste-based reservation in India and race-based APT in the US are meant to include the historically excluded forces in the intellectual pool that the nations are trying to build in modern times. So far this has proved to be contributing to the growing new knowledge zones in the larger civil society with equally respectable citizenship rights. Both the new knowledge and social equality are complementary for human advancement.

In India, caste played a role in negating the growth of the new talent pool. In the West, race-based slavery did the same. The Shape of the River — Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions (2000), a famous book by William G Brown and Derek Bok (both were top academics and administrators in the US), said that the American talent pool grew enormously after the APT system was put in place. This is true of the Indian experience. I myself am a product of the reservation system.

White Gurukulas

The consequences of the Supreme Court judgement would certainly be detrimental to the US knowledge power. Their elite universities are likely to become White Gurukulas where multi-cultural knowledge hybridisation is likely to stop. The historical Indian experience tells only that kind of negative story of the Brahmin Gurukula education system. Our ancient Gurukulas and the pre-reservation modern higher educational institutions have not produced great innovations. Since mobility of people from the production field to university was never allowed, caste-blind education continued for long. But it did not advance the Indian knowledge system.

In America too, if the best universities become White Gurukulas, knowledge production is likely to suffer. The most famous Harvard university may become an institute of Boston Brahmins. The race-blind admission system that the court has put in place may lead to a knowledge-blind system itself.

(The writer is former Director, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad.)

https://thefederal.com/opinion/with-affirmative-action-gone-american-universities-could-turn-into-white-gurukulas/

The Enemies of Social Change and Unethical Scholarship

by Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd

On May 17  suddenly I got a video on my watsapp. When I opened it I saw  the title “Kancha Ilaiah shepherd:  Bharat Vikhander”. Two supposedly experts on my work, Sharada Narayanan and Shubhodeep Mukhopadhyay, wrote an essay on me and my work in a book  that was said to have been  edited by Rajiv Malhotra and Divya Reddy. Both the authors talked about their essay.

The title of the book was more amusing,“ Ten Heads of Ravana—A Critique of Hinduphobic Scholars”. In those ten heads my head is supposed to be one. Their talk itself was abusive.

Later the mike was handed over to Madhu Kishwar who abused me in the talk in a choicest language to the point of crucifying me. (see this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMzzxROTF0c)

I then ordered the book and read.

First let me list out the grave wanton lies about what I said in Post-Hindu India on page 238 in reference number 11. They wrote:

“For example he explicitly calls for a civil war to exterminate Brahmins globally in order to make Indian society more energetic….”. ( Ten Heads of Ravana p. 296)

Nowhere in page 238 of Post-Hindu India such a sentence, with a call for extermination of Brahmins, is written.

Again in page 310 of the book they wrote, “ It is to be noted calling for the genocide of Brahmins a minority community which makes up less than three per cent of India…” Nowhere in page 182 of the book they referenced again, such a  sentence of genocide of Brahmins exists. These are their deliberately worked out concoctions.

Why did they write these kinds of false non-existing sentences in my book? It is very clear that this team is meant to crucify me exactly like the Pharisees concocted false stories on Jesus Christ, in order to crucify him.

Malhotra’s team seems to have acquired a crucifixion cultural mentality.

Look at their bad collection of facts about me. They said “ He was Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Osmania University till he retired in 2012” I became a full Professor in 1998 and served as the Head Department for two years and retired in 2012, with twelve years of service as professor”.

They say that Why I am Not a Hindu was published with the financial help of Rajiv Gandhi Foundation (p. 310). I never took any money from any foundation to write or to publish my books. The field work for Why I am Not a Hindu and Post Hindu India (almost for ten years) was done entirely by spending from my own salary.

The  fact that Ten Heads of Ravana  is dedicated to ‘All Intellectual Ksatriyas’ shows how casteist they are.

All my books are written for development of the productive masses of India and they are an embodiment of the Indian civilization and knowledge systems of the food producers, artisans and adivasi knowledge systems, but not of the reflections of the Brahminic books, with which the masses do not have any engagement in the living history of this nation.

They all were written in Sanskrit and that language was not theirs.

RAVANA AND EVIL

In the introduction Malhotra writes “The historical Ravana disrupted society’s Hindu structures, and the heads chosen for this book are considered by Hindus today to be individuals doing something similar…” Who are these individuals? They are: Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Shashi Tharoor, Ramachandra Guha, Sheldon Pollock, Wendy Doniger, Devdutt Pattanaik, Kancha Ilaiah, Audrey Truschke and Michael Witzel.

According to Brahminic theory Ravana represented the evil of the universe and got killed by Rama. His kastam (funeral fire)    keeps burning forever. Perhaps with a view that if that kastam  does not keep burning, or rather the moment it stops burning, Ravana will resurrect and re-establish his kingdom again. Malhotra and his team settled down at Ravana Kashtam to keep a watch whether all his ten heads, in reality the heads of ten authors, they hate in the present Kaliyuga of democracy, be burnt properly.

THE INTENT OF THE BOOK

The book shows how Rajiv Malhotra and his team hate the idea of social change; the idea of human equality; the idea of casteless society; the idea of man-woman equality in the name OF Bharata Dharma.

Quite surprisingly News 18 which publicized the book launch on March 3, 2023 said, “ The team of authors said they had invited the 10 scholars whose works they had critiqued to the event but had not got any response from them”. This is a lie.  I did not get any invitation in any mode from them. If they were to give me a flight ticket from Hyderabad to book a launch place I would have gone.

Their right to write a critical account of any writer is undeniable in a democracy, but that writing cannot be an account of a Police report. The editors and authors claimed that they undertook the effort to protect the Hindu Dharma and Indian civilization. But the whole book in general, the chapter on my work and my person in particular, does not show any serious reading and goes to the roots of my evaluation of village labour economics and culture. They do not seem to have to do anything about the Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi production and civilization. Because my two books they said to have studied, required a deep understanding of the rural system of production. They have no clue what the Indian village agrarian and artisan system is.

They tried to attack me from their Puranas and Shastras point of view. I reject all those texts because they have nothing to do with Indian land, labour and production and spirituality that got constructed by the Indian masses for millennia.

WRITING BASED ON FIELD WORK

Both Why I am Not a Hindu and Post Hindu India are written based on field work among the productive communities, which in caste terms are Shudra, Dalits and Adivasis. From Harappan civilization to present day civilization the production process, the technology, the methods of production, peoples’ knowledge of nature and their spiritual culture made India what they are. Both my books reviewed history and civilization for the first time from the village upwards. Both the authors do not seem to know that whole knowledge. My criticism of Brahminism is based on that rooted knowledge of Indian people, not about the knowledge of gurus and saints.

They were searching for my knowledge of Vedas, Upanishads, Ramayanam, Mahabharatam and other Puranas, written in Sanskrit in ancient and medieval times. I never treated those books as representative of Indian knowledge.  My critique of Brahmin, Baniya, Ksatriya life was from the point of production and distribution of goods, commodities, the man-woman relations that shaped up in the civilization and cultural domain in the process of production.

Their books and their gurus have no contribution to the food and other material and culture production at any point of time in Indian history. The Shudra knowledge system and Brahmin knowledge system operated in two parallel lines without a meeting point anywhere.

Most of the books and the gurus they referred to in the essay were alien to the historical agrarian process. In fact, no book dealt with anything serious about the Indian food producers, their knowledge, culture, spiritual or material. No Brahmin guru, or Ksatriya ruler respected them with a view that they too were/are human beings. Their productive labour was treated as anti-Santhan Dharma. That’s why I did not bother about such books.

Can they show any ancient and medieval Sanskrit book that wrote one full chapter on the Shudra production process and their spiritual systems.  Almost all the books were written to establish control mechanisms with Danda Neethi. No book talked about doing justice to laboring masses. The Dharma that they repeatedly referred to in this whole book is irrelevant to the Indian masses.

METHODOLOGY OF REFERENCING

All through their essay they attacked me for not referencing my books. They were searching for references for my arguments from their Sanskrit books.

Where are references in Sanskrit books? Whom did their gurus who wrote the Sanskrit books quote?

It did not strike these writers and the editors that there are no references in Vedas, Upanishads or Kautilya’s Arthashastra and Manu’ Dharma Shastra. Why do they want my books written from mass production knowledge, science, technology and spirituality point of view to be referenced from unconcerned Sanskrit books?

The idea of Dharma they constructed in those books was to the advantage of the anti-production and Shudras/Dalits/Adivasis. How did those books without references become authentic and rather sacred? Sacred for whom and what for? What is Dharma in those books? Is it Justice for the Shudra/Dalit/Adivasis or injustice? All their ideas and of Dharma have been handed down injustice, violence, discrimination up to the level of treating agriculturists, artisans as untouchable and unwanted in the Brahminic in social and religious life.

Only a fool from these communities gives them the respect that a Brahmin, Ksatriya, or Baniyas, who benefited from those books, gives. If Sanskrit is so sacred to these writers why did not they write “ Ten Heads of Ravana” in Sanskrit? Why did they write in English which according to them is a colonial language?

Does this American  Malhotra’s team want the Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi masses to believe them even though there is no single line in the whole book about agriculture, artisan economy; about the divine deities that exist in thousands all over India. Almost all the essays were trying to portray that India since ancient times was/is pure vegetarian. They have no idea of how meat food was/is offered as culture and divine purity in the agrarian human relationships. All these authors and editors’ think that their own household culture is Indian culture. Once such concrete historical questions from the standpoint of the productive masses are raised they say that these are pro-Christian and pro-Muslim arguments. This is a fear generating argument using the modern Danda of nationalism. How can those who live in America teach nationalism for the masses of India who are producing wealth living in this country facing all odds?

THEY WANT END  PLURAL DISCOURSE IN INDIA  

These writers and editors want an end of plural discourse in India by repeatedly accusing all ten authors whom they critiqued as pro-Islam, pro-Christian and Hindu Phobic. In this whole book the name of the religion Hindu is used as synonym for Brahmin, Bania, Ksatriya, Khatri and Kayastha, (broadly known as Dwijas) culture that too as a monolith, even though writers like Romial Thapar, Ramchandra Guha, Devadut Patnaik come from those caste backgrounds with their own understanding of secularism and pluralism and practice in life.

This whole exercise is to stop creative thinking and writing. But they will not succeed in this attempt.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a Political Theorist, Social Activist and author. His two well known books, Why I am Not a Hindu– A Sudra Critique of Hindutva Philosophy, Culture & Political Economy and Post-Hindu India–A Discourse in Dalit-Bahujan, Socio-Spiritual and Scientific Revolution have been attacked by Rajiv Malhotra and his team in their latest book Ten Heads of Ravana.

https://countercurrents.org/2023/06/the-enemies-of-social-change-and-unethical-scholarship/

June 25 is the 92nd birth anniversary of the almost forgotten Mandal Messiah

By KANCHA ILAIAH SHEPHERD|

22 June 2023 9:57 AM

On June 25, a celebration meeting of V. P. Singh’s 92 birth anniversary meeting has been planned by several pro-social justice organisations at the Constitution Club, New Delhi. This will be the first of such celebrations on V. P. Singh who is almost a forgotten Mandal Messiah.

It is expected that several political leaders, activists, writers will participate to recall Singh’s work for social justice. Born and brought up in a Ksatriya (also spelled Kshatriya) Raja family from Uttar Pradesh, his role in the post-Independence Indian history as a Prime Minister has to be re-assessed.

India has had several other Prime Ministers up to Narendra Modi, who has claimed to be an OBC. We should also see V. P. Singh’s role as PM, in contrast with the Ksatriya rulers like Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Adityanath and Union Defence Minister Rajnath Singh who also hail from that community of feudal ruling background of the same state as V. P. Singh. As a person who fought for justifying the implementation of reservation, and who witnessed Singh’s fight for defending the implementation of Mandal Commission Report recommending 27 percent reservation in national jobs for the OBCs, I would like to ask: if Modi were to be the PM at that time would he have implemented and defended it the way V. P. Singh did?

Would Deve Gowda, a Shudra beneficiary of reservation, who became PM have done that? Nobody would have taken the ideological and moral position that V. P. Singh took. Singh was even prepared to be even killed for the sake of Social Justice, like Abraham Lincoln did for the sake of Black Rights.

While Abraham Lincoln sacrificed his life in America V. P. Singh sacrificed his position and image among anti-Mandal ruling forces. It led to his Government being pulled down by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP).

The Congress was Singh’s arch enemy at that time, and was willing to finish him by all means. Immediately after Singh was thrown out by the BJP, the Congress brought in another Ksatriya Chandra Shekhar from UP, as PM.

He pretended to be a socialist all his life but remained a strong anti-social justice element. In 1991 another cunning Brahmin P.V .Narsimha Rao became the PM and nobody would have expected him to implement the Mandal Commission Report, if V.P.Singh were not to take that risk from that position.

It is true that many other political forces of that time demanded implementation of the Mandal Commission Report. However, if V.P Singh had not chosen to do that, no silent revolution would have taken place in Indian history.

Because the Shudra OBCs of that time were completely incapable of handling the ideological and philosophical question of social justice. Though there were some politicians from North India who demanded and worked for the Report’s implementation, there were no intellectual forces from the Shudra/OBCs to defend it in the hostile power structures and in the media.

Arun Shourie kind of anti-social justice forces in the media , when all papers, electronic media (including Doordarshan) was against the Report’s implementation, and the OBC leaders would have buckled down easily.

They had driven Dwija youth to self-immolate, abuse and attack the pro-Mandal forces. The Communist Dwijas were against the Mandal Commission Report’s implementation.

Very few pro-Mandal writers, such as Gail Omvedt and I, had to struggle for a space to publish even a small article in English in support of V. P. Singh’s implementation. Only journals like ‘Economic and Political Weekly’ gave marginal space.

There was no social media at that time. We were helpless and could do little except cry in isolation. The only strength was V. P. Singh’s undaunted defence of the Mandal Commission Report’s implementation from every public space possible, including in his bold August 15 speech from the Red Fort.

Singh’s resignation letter and address to the nation before he resigned put all other Prime Ministers who came before, and after him, under the dark clouds of shame and guilt. If PM Modi, as a self-proclaimed OBC who got many votes because of that, reads Singh’s philosophical defence discourses on social justice his head would hang in shame.

Modi never takes Singh’s name as an exceptional PM of India who implemented the Mandal Commission Report with courage and conviction. Modi never issues a statement on Singh’s birthday.

V.P. Singh’s short stint in the PM office reminds us of the saying that, “it is not how long you rule that is important for the people, but how you rule when you are in power”.

Nehru’s 17-year rule, Indira Gandhi’s 14-year rule and Modi’s 10-year rule fades away when compared to V. P. Singh’s less than one year rule. Singh changed the country’s 5000 years of history within that short span of less than a year.

I do not know how much space is allotted to V. P. Singh in the newly built Prime Minister Library and Society at what was once named Teen Murti House. But he deserves as much space as all other PMs including Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Manmohan Singh, Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Narendra Modi get.

Hence, it is important that when the present and past ruling parties want him to be forgotten the people must remember V. P. Singh, and celebrates his birthday as Social Justice Day. Tamil Nadu is planning to install V. P. Singh’s statue and such efforts must be made in every state.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author of many books, the latest being From Shepherd Boy to an Intellectual: My Memoirs.

https://www.thecitizen.in/opinion/v-p-singh-kshatriya-turned-social-justice-agent-942271?utm_source=The+Citizen&utm_campaign=476cef9a99-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_202

Indian Americans who have written ‘Ten Heads of Ravana’ aim to decolonise the Indian mindset. Why do they not send their children to Sanskrit schools in India but to prestigious universities in US?

KANCHA ILAIAH SHEPHERD

10 June, 2023

Tripura Chief Minister Manik Saha at Central Sanskrit University in Agartala | Image source: @DrManikSaha2 | Twitter

Agroup of mostly Indian Americans led by Rajiv Malhotra recently published a book called Ten Heads of Ravana: A Critique of Hinduphobic Scholars. Written in English, the book criticises ten scholars, including Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Shashi Tharoor, Ramachandra Guha, Devdutt Pattanaik, Sheldon Pollock, Wendy Doniger, Audrey Truschke, Michael Witzel, and this author.

Malhotra and his team attack these scholars by comparing them to the mythological character Ravana and accusing them of killing Dharma, which they derived from ancient Sanskrit books. In the introduction, Malhotra writes, “The ten contemporary scholars in this book have been chosen because their work includes aspects that many Hindus today consider adharmic, just as the historical Ravana was perceived in his times.”

Notably, the four foreign scholars targeted in the book have worked on Sanskrit and taught the language in various Western universities for quite a long time. On the other hand, Malhotra owns a financial network called Infinity Foundation in America and runs Garuda Prakashan in Delhi, which has published the book.

Now the question is: Why did these Sanskrit-loving Indian Americans not write their book in Sanskrit? They write books in English and attack the language as colonial. They praise Sanskrit as a great global living language but never use it in any text. When Sheldon Pollock called Sanskrit a dead language in modern times, he was not wrong. How many households are there in India where family members communicate in Sanskrit or use it in their daily lives?

The problem with these pseudo-intellectuals is that they think abuse is analysis. By writing this book, they have exposed only themselves, not Romila Thapar, Irfan Habib, Shashi Tharoor, Ramachandra Guha, Sheldon Pollock, Wendy Doniger, Devdutt Pattanaik, Audrey Truschke, Michael Witzel, or this author.

Linguicide, the death of any language, occurs when there are no surviving native speakers of a language. However, Sanskrit’s linguicide has been orchestrated by a group of people who used it to maintain hegemonic control. Historically, Sanskrit was controlled by Brahminic writers who restricted access to it and denied the ancient Shudras and Dalits the opportunity to read or write in the language. Sanskrit was treated as the exclusive property of Brahmins and Kshatriyas, primarily Brahmins.

Brahmins killed Sanskrit

Now, they no longer use Sanskrit for writing books with social or academic significance. Essentially, they are consciously responsible for the demise of their own language while continuing to blame the rest of the world for its death. In post-colonial India, no single Brahmin has written any meaningful modern book in Sanskrit.

Contrastingly, other cultures like Jews write globally popular modern books in Hebrew, such as Yuval Noah Harari’s influential work, Sapiens – A Brief History of Humankind, which was originally written in Hebrew and later translated into numerous languages worldwide. Greeks write in Greek, and Arabs write in Arabic. But Brahmins do not write in Sanskrit. Why is it so? Is it because they hate the language but continue to praise it to deceive the gullible Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi masses?

Brahminic intellectuals, supported financially and institutionally by the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), consciously emphasise and glorify only the Sanskrit past while disregarding India’s agrarian and artisanal history. They claim that Sanskrit is the richest and greatest language in the world. These intellectuals propagate the notion that all globally available knowledge in various disciplines was originally stolen from Sanskrit texts—Vedas, Upanishads, Brahmanas, Ramayana, and Mahabharata. Even their scientists claim that all modern science is available in ancient Sanskrit books. Yet, how many of these scholars have actually read those books in Sanskrit?

If Sanskrit possesses such immense creative energy, why do Indian Brahmins, who are now spread across the world, leave the global philosophical and intellectual space to individuals like Harari? They could write remarkable books in Sanskrit and demonstrate its richness compared to Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic. Instead of writing quality books in Sanskrit, why do they choose to write in English, a language they frequently criticise as a colonial language?

Sanskrit was considered a “father tongue” rather than a “mother tongue” throughout its history in India. This applies even to Dwija families (Brahmin, Kshatriya, Bania, Kayastha, and Khatri). It is important to remember that Sanskrit was never allowed to become a “mother tongue” even within Brahmin families, as it was never used as a language for everyday communication or in the household. A language can only be considered a “mother tongue” if it is regularly used in daily life within the home, including communication between a mother and her child while breastfeeding. Was Sanskrit ever used by any mother in India to communicate with her child during breastfeeding?

When Sanskrit was not allowed to become a “mother tongue” even within Brahmin households, the question of its adoption in production fields among the Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi communities throughout history did not arise. There was a severe prohibition on the use of this language among agrarian and artisanal communities since the composition of the first Sanskrit book—the Rigveda. Prior to the composition of the Rigveda, the status of Sanskrit as a language was largely unknown.

Not your Amrit Kaal

Given these circumstances, one must question why this group of Indian Americans, which identifies itself as a protector of civilisation, does not write their books in Sanskrit. This team aims to decolonise the Indian mindset, primarily consisting of individuals living in America, Europe, Canada, or Australia, and mobilising financial resources. Why do they not send their children to Sanskrit schools and universities established in India? Instead, why do they choose to send their children to prestigious American universities?

These individuals who have written Ten Heads of Ravana accuse the scholars of being ignorant about India’s civilisation that comes from Sanskrit books. But what do they mean by civilisation? Can civilisation be built through books? Interestingly, in their entire discourse on civilisation, there is no mention of the role of agriculture, science, and technology—the very foundations built by ancient Shudras, Dalits, and Adivasis. Even a cursory reading of any translation of Sanskrit books indicates the absence of social forces from the Shudra, Dalit, and Adivasi communities. These books primarily focus on two castes, Brahmins and Kshatriyas, centered around themes of war, yagnas, and kratus. However, the entire systems of food production, gathering, and animal grazing are completely absent from these books.

All Hindutva writers accuse those who view civilisation from an agrarian, artisanal, and animal economy perspective as being anti-national. Since I keep writing about the agrarian, artisanal and animal economy, while living in India, they call me “Bharat Vikhander”. They behave as if they are sustaining themselves solely by consuming the pages of Sanskrit books. It is crucial to acknowledge that all human beings, including these Hindutva writers, survive on the food produced by Dalit, Adivasi, and Shudra agrarian masses. Even during the composition of the Vedas, the composers relied on food produced by Shudras for their survival. How could they have composed books in which the very food producers were absent?

These forces are internationalising their hypocrisy and constructing a literary treasure trove filled with myths. They want the world to believe that India sustained itself by consuming the Amrutam (elixir) that emerged from the churning of the seas. They never write about those who tilled the land, produced meat and milk through animal grazing, or crafted the ornaments worn by the kings and queens who supposedly lived in that “Sanskrit Age”.

Ironically, these Indian American elites, particularly members of the Infinity Foundation who oppose anti-caste laws in the US, refer to themselves as “Intellectual Kshatriyas”. Isn’t that casteism? Dalits, Adivasis, and Shudras are not interested in your Sanskrit Age. They want to move forward into the English Age, displace these forces from all centres of knowledge production, and establish a connection between food production and knowledge production.

This is not the Amrit Kaal; it is, in fact, the Shudra Kaal. In this era, production is not pollution, as depicted in Sanskrit books. Here, production is sacred.

Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist, social activist and author. His latest book is The Shudras—Vision For a New Path co-edited with Karthik Raja Karuppusamy. He is currently working on a book, The Shudra Rebellion—History From Field Memories. Views are personal.

(Edited by Prashant)

https://theprint.in/opinion/doniger-truschke-pollock-didnt-kill-sanskrit-brahmins-did/1621532/