Home

  • Sabarimala row: While he defends ‘tradition’, will PM Modi also guarantee protection to Bindu and Kanakadurga?

    By saying that resistance to women’s entry into Sabarimala temple is a matter of custom and sentiment, the Prime Minister has let down all marginalised groups, including women.

    The entry of two women devotees, Bindu and Kanakadurga, into the sanctum sanctorum of the Sabarimala temple on January 2 led to widespread violence in the state of Kerala.

    The violence, which erupted during the bandh call issued by the BJP and allied organisations on January 3, saw not just damage of public property but also the loss of a valuable life.

    bindu-690_010719062258.jpg

    Bindu and Kanakadurga scripted history by entering the Sabarimala temple on January 2. (Source: Reuters)

    At a time when Kerala hasn’t fully recovered from the massive floods that hit the state in August-September 2009, the damage to public property caused by the BJP-called bandh proved to be a double whammy.

    According to me, what actually emboldened the BJP to call for a shutdown was the statement made by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on January 1 during an interview to ANI.

    Modi endorsed the protest being led by his party in the state ever since the Supreme Court lifted the ban on the entry of women (of menstruating age) into the Sabarimala temple.

    During the interview, while answering a question on the Triple Talaq ordinance and the SC judgment on Sabarimala, Modi gave a shocking reply. He said while triple talaq is a issue related to women’s equality, the Sabarimala judgment is (against the Hindu) tradition. As I see it, this is a dangerous stand taken by the Prime Minister of the nation.

    The BJP and the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) are opposing the entry of women across age groups into the temple. The Sangh Parivar is even indulging in violence to stop women from entering the Ayyappa temple. Going by the interview, the PM tacitly supports their violent resistance — which is in violation of the Supreme Court.

    This move could have huge implications on the judicial governance of India.

    Social reform has faced stiff resistance in India ever since the modern age began during British rule. Gender equality was a problem across the world, both in the societal and the spiritual domains. In India, however, because of a more rigid patriarchy and well-entrenched caste culture, women faced more problems.

    ayyappa-690_010719062611.jpg

    Devotees, mostly women, take part in the namajapa (chanting the name of Lord Ayyappa ) in Ernakulam. (Source: PTI)

    The so-called Hindu spiritual system was never organised in accordance with defined canonical laws. Every varna or caste followed its own patriarchy, both in the religious and social order.

    Islam was the first religion to grant women religious rights.

    This, in a way, started with the Prophet Mohammed marrying Khadija, who was 15 years older than him. She is known as the first follower of Islam, under the Prophet. Muslim women were the first to read the Quran. The Christian world subsequently allowed women to read the Bible and thereafter, Christian society allowed many reforms in quick succession.

    The Buddhist women in China and other eastern countries were given social and religious rights only after great struggles. In India, after Buddhism was driven out, women belonging to the top three varnas — Brahmin, Kshatriyas and Bania — suffered enormous oppression, discrimination and exploitation. They suffered forced Sati as well as child marriages, which, in turn, led to more instances of widowhood. Added to this was the fact that widows were not allowed to marry.

    Not just Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis, but women too were not allowed entry into temples.

    Women were also victims of domestic violence and frequently accused of witchcraft.

    The Shudra, Dalit and Adivasi temples, on the other hand, were open to everyone — including women. Some well-known examples include Sammakka-Sarakka Jatara, Komuravelli Mallanna, and Iloni Mallanna temple in Telangana. Interestingly, women play key roles in these temples. Such temples and jataras exist all over the country.

    This proves the religious culture practised by the marginalised communities were far more egalitarian.

    Lord Ayyappa was also part of this culture. Women were treated equally at this deity’s temple historically.

    From 1990 onwards, however, Lord Ayyappa and the Sabarimala temple were appropriated by Hindu Brahminical forces — which led to restrictions on women’s entry.

    In a welcome move, the Supreme Court reversed the practice.

    But Modi, who claims an other backward class (OBC) background, should have known the traditions of the marginalised better than the Brahminic tradition.

    modi_010719062716.jpg

    In the name of tradition, PM Modi has defended Sangh Parivar’s actions in Kerala. (Source: PTI)

    When Modi says that the protest over Sabarimala is about ‘tradition’, what tradition is he actually referring to?

    The practice of Muslim men divorcing their wives by pronouncing ‘talaq’ three times had also become a ‘tradition’ with this minority community.

    The government brought in an ordinance to stop this tradition because it is fundamentally wrong — and I support the government on it.

    But I totally oppose the BJP and RSS on the issue of Sabarimala where Modi’s party is invoking ‘tradition’ and the religious sentiments of men to discriminate against women.

    It is in the name of tradition — written or unwritten — that women have been oppressed for so long.

    Reformers such as Raja Ram Mohan Roy brought in reforms by fighting traditions and ‘sentiments’ of the oppressors. The RSS and its allied organisations have not done anything to change any oppressive custom.

    How does it take Hindu society, leave alone all of Indian society as a whole, towards modernity and advancement?

    In a traditional society like ours, the Prime Minister must work for social reforms at every stage.

    One Prime Minister who did that was Jawaharlal Nehru. Modi is very critical of him. But can Modi quote a single reform that he introduced or supported from his position?

    If the nation’s PM does not back reforms that its judiciary is trying to enforce, who should the nation look up to?

    In the light of what is happening in Kerala, let Modi answer himself the nation — will he guarantee protection to Bindu and Kanakadurga from the deadly forces hounding them?

  • Is spiritual citizenship possible for Dalits and Adivasis within Hinduism?

    When a group of people is repeatedly told they were born unequal, they forget how to frame demands for rights. This is in contrast to Christianity, which prompted the genesis of equal societies.

    By Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd
    On December 26, the India Today TV (English) channel telecast an investigative report on the status of Dalits in Hindu temples. Its investigation report revealed that many major Hindu temples either do not allow entry to Dalits, or perform ‘shuddhikaran’ (washing the temples with milk and water) after they leave. In a panel discussion, of which I too was a part, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) representatives disagreed with the practice — but were not willing to suggest any reform agenda.

    Even in the 21st century, Dalits cannot enter temples, and Shudra/OBCs cannot become priests.

    Their children cannot study in any Hindu theological school. Such schools are exclusively meant for Brahmins. In other words, the Shudra/Dalits are defined as ‘Hindu’ in terms of religion — but have no spiritual citizenship rights.

    If people and communities are in a religion, but do not have spiritual citizenship rights, what implications would it have on their rights in other structures — social, political and economic?

    At Odisha's iconic Lingaraj temple, Dalits are allowed inside the sanctum only once in a year. (Image: nuaodisha)

    At Odisha’s iconic Lingaraj temple, Dalits are allowed inside the sanctum only once in a year. (Image: nuaodisha)

    To understand what spiritual citizenship actually means, we need to examine its nature and character.

    The concept of political citizenship is well-known in the scholarly domain. That a citizen has equal rights with every other citizen in a democratic set-up is also now well-known. The basic concept of ‘rights’ starts with the right to vote, the right to contest and the right to occupy all positions in the state.

    The right to vote was traditionally in operation in tribal communities, with a voice vote. The tribal democratic republics actually institutionalised the concept of citizenship in a rudimentary way. The notion of God and religion was not well-developed at that stage of human evolution.

    But the concept of citizenship, in its meaningful sense of rights, is operative only in democratic systems.

    In political dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, including communist regimes, the concept of ‘citizenship’, with a sense of equality even in the political domain, is not in operation. In communist systems, though equality is the main political principle, since the right to vote and the right to contest are not available, the principle of equality is circumcised by manipulation. How other domains like religion operate in the communist systems is not very clear. How civil society operates needs to be scrutinised.

    However, the major Communist Party-controlled country, China, has shown better economic progress than India, which is democratic in the political domain — but its spiritual system suffers from faith-based spiritual fascist hierarchies.

    Human untouchability is an accepted and practised practice in Hinduism.

    Our concern here is to look into the spiritual citizenship issue, which has serious implications for the huge number of Indians categorised as Shudras or Dalits or Adivasis.

    In the long history of Hinduism, the Shudras and Dalits had no spiritual citizenship. The Shudras became slaves of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas from the Rig Veda days. They were the Indo-Africans who built the Harappan urban civilization, by advancing the villages. The Dalits/Adivasis were part of that evolution.

    In the 21st century, the question of about 800 million people not having the right to a spiritual citizenship will have huge implications for national development — and its competitive energy with neighbouring nations like China and Pakistan.

    In the 21st century, the question of about 800 million people

    In the 21st century, about 800 million people — who have political rights — are still struggling for social and religious rights in India. (Photo: PTI/file) 

    Earlier, India as a nation was enslaved by colonial expansionists, and even before that, by other invaders who were better organised by their spiritual systems.

    However, one fundamental question that confronts us in this discourse is, where did the notion of citizenship come from? Whether the notion of citizenship has its origin in the domain of religion or in civil society outside religious society has not been seriously examined. As I said earlier, the tribal societies instituted some sort of civil societal citizenship. But there was no developed religion in those societies.

    In pre-democratic political society, apart from religion, there was no well-organised structure of non-religious civil society. Since the citizenship question is related to the notion of equality, I do not think that general civil society in itself could evolve a notion of equality. For a long time in human history, ‘might was right’ — both organised religion and the state changed this course, and improved conditions of human safety. Between the state and religion, religion played a role of mental control and institutionalised behavioural patterns.

    The notion of a higher level of human equality seems to have had its origins in the religious domain itself.

    There is a clear indication that the concept of citizenship has its roots in the gradual evolution of religious understanding that ‘God created all human beings equal’.

    Thus, the notion of equality seems to have taken birth in the religious domain. I do not think this idea of ‘God creating all human beings equal’ has been there throughout the existence of the institution of religion. It is certainly an evolutionary idea.

    It seems to have become somewhat clear with the evolution of codified text-based religion. Religion with a codified canon first came into being perhaps with the complete codification of the Bible in the post-Jesus period of the world. Though Buddhism as a religion is pre-Christian, it never evolved a codified Buddhist canonical text.

    The Bible has given the idea of human equality with statements such as Genesis’ ‘God created male and female in the image of God’. Perhaps a new thinking must have begun in the minds of humans about the notion of equality based on this statement.

    It is written: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them…”. The repeated reading of such a notion of somewhat equal creation must have led to interpretations of ‘equal creation of all human beings’.

    In other words, this statement in the Bible paved a new path for human equality.

    This canonical text became a reference point of demanding equality among educated members of the religion by constantly invoking the idea that God created all human beings equal.

    All human perceptions of inequality started with the perception that man and woman are unequal. The other inequalities, like caste and race, evolved gradually. This perception of human beings needed to be changed. The only available powerful institution was religion. And the change of perception was initiated by the Bible as religious text.

    The other major statement that the Bible put before human beings was that, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28 ). This statement established a principle that race, nationalility and male-female inequalities do not make any sense in the image of Jesus. In other words, equality is an essential principle of the divine domain.

    Though this is not fully achieved in practising Christianity, the principle does give scope for the struggle for equality.

    The question now is — does Hinduism as a religion show respect for spiritual citizenship in any form?

    Did Hindu religious texts (as there are many texts) give any scope for spiritual equality?

    Do organisations like the RSS or the Hindu Mahasabha work towards that kind of spiritual equality?

    The Shudras were slaves in ancient India — they have been people without any spiritual rights under the hegemonic control of Brahmins from those days.

    The Shudras were slaves in ancient India — they have been people without any spiritual rights since then. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons)

    In terms of canonical ideology, the Rig Vedic text clearly laid down that God (the Purush or Brahma) created human beings unequal, as four Varnas — Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaisya and Shudra. Even in the most revered Hindu spiritual text, the Bhagvad Gita, the statement ‘Chaturnam Mayamshustam’ (I have created four Varnas as unequal) clearly indicates that all Hindus are not equal.

    The two middle Varnas, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas, have been given several rights.

    But the Shudras/Dalits have not been given any right.

    The Shudras were slaves in ancient India — they have been people without any spiritual rights under the hegemonic control of Brahmins since those days.

    The same situation continues till today.

    Why do not they ask for spiritual citizenship?

    Protracted spiritual slavery — with a mandate that God created an individual or group unequal and that status could never be changed — conditions human mindz in a frozen manner. It was repeatedly told to the Shudras/Dalits generation after generation that ‘God created you in this fixed place, that is your Karma’. In that state of mind, most human beings fear God more than they fear the state. This is where belief and faith work as strong doses towards a mental condition.

    Shudras/Dalits have suffered these conditions for a longer period in history than any other set of people in the world.

    The Shudras and Dalits have not come to frame their spiritual demands. Some among them may have money and some among them may have political power — but the demand for spiritual citizenship creates a condition of spiritual fear among them.

    Asking for spiritual equality is a fundamental issue before the Shudra-OBCs and Dalits. Their philosophical growth depends on this issue getting resolved.

  • Why Pinarayi Vijayan must take the RSS-BJP head-on in the Sabarimala fight

    The fight is now for more than the one temple

    The Sangh Parivar has started the movement to overthrow the communist government in Kerala. Vijayan must protect his turf, and all that liberal India stands for.

    KANCHA ILAIAH SHEPHERD

    In rural Andhra Pradesh, there is a proverb that is reportedly used by rapists against their victims, “Allow me to rape you — or I’ll cut my own organ [presumably, the penis].” The saying reflects deep-seated misogyny and chauvinistic tendencies.

    The threat of self-immolationnow emerging from Thiruvananthapuram against the Supreme Court order that allowed women of all age groups to enter the Sabarimala shrine may be similarly seen. A man, who attempted self-immolation, has since died in the state of Kerala.

    A similar politics, of grave threats, was seen during the anti-reservation protests in the 1990s. The protests notwithstanding, the fight for reservations in jobs and education was fought — and won.

    Brahmanic patriarchal forces adopted this culture in the post-Harappa civilisation — and they retain the same anti-women and anti-Dalit/Shudra/Adivasi tendencies to this day. Indian women and food producers have been victims of this culture for millennia. But we need to fight this to its logical end.

    Let me go back a bit in history.

    The oldest city in the Indian subcontinent is Harappa. As per historical evidence, Harappa was the oldest city in the world built with bronze, brick, crafted wood and stone. As is well-known, it was built 1,500 years before the Aryan invasion and the writing of the Rig Veda and other Brahmanic texts. Both male and female labourers were involved in the building of the city that can safely be said to belong to pre-patriarchal times.

    I have written in my earlier article — How Brahmins ensured India never progressed — that by using the power of Agni and Vayu, the Harappan civilisation was destroyed by Aryan Brahmanic forces. Later, they introduced the varna system and a brutal Brahmanic patriarchy, going on to adopt saffron as a Brahmanic colour and the swastik as their symbol.

    Saffron is also now the colour of the BJP and its ideological arm, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Saffron was never the colour of the Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis. The Brahmins apparently declared black to be a demonic colour and it became a hue of the Periyarites and Dravidians.

    It has now been proven that Harappans were black-complexioned people themselves and their favourite colour was black, the colour of the buffalo — the animal that makes the highest contribution to India’s milk production. The saffron forces never treated the buffalo on par with the cow, which is generally seen as a white animal (though there are a few black cows too, but there is no white buffalo anywhere in India).

    Now, to my mind, as sources have referred, Lord Ayyappa is a Shudra or Adivasi deity who was black in complexion himself. Those who take the Ayyappa mala only wear black clothes, mostly a mundu and shirt. The other day, I was at Hyderabad’s Rajiv Gandhi International Airport and saw hundreds of Ayyappa bhakts, all dressed in black with malas on their head. Among them were children too.

    If Harappa is the name of the most ancient city in India’s west, Lord Ayyapa is sitting in a temple in Sabarimala at the southern end of India.

    The similarity in the names of Harappa and Ayyappa too can’t be missed. If the black-complexioned Indo-Dravidians built Harappa, the ‘black’ Ayyappa is worshipped by many Shudras, Dalits and Adivasis. Brahmins, Vaisyas, Jains and Kayasthas generally do not go to the Ayyappa temple and don’t wear the mala dress.

    Telugu people constitute the largest group of Ayyappa devotees. In the 66 years of my life, I have not seen a single Brahmin or Arya Vysya in Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, taking Ayyappa deeksha and going to Sabarimala in the customary black clothes.

    While women too did not wear the mala, I remember seeing a lot of them visit the temple during my childhood. This is in consonance with the Mala Araya tribe’s claim that the Brahmins of Kerala took over the temple in the 1970s and 1980s and introduced anti-women practices. While the tribals want to reclaim the temple, the saffron brigade has apparently thrown constitutional propriety to the winds.

    Ayyappa is a symbol of Dravidian male-female equality. Aryan Brahmanism, under the leadership of its saffron brigade, is apparently trying to destroy this Dravidian culture now by Brahmanising that aspect of spiritual culture. However, there is serious resistance to this anti-constitutional and anti-Ayyappan Brahmanism from Pinarayi Vijayan — also the chief minister of Kerala.

    After Narayana Guru and Ayyankali, Pinarayi Vijayan is leading a pro-Ayyappan movement, which he calls a ‘new renaissance’.

    The Indian renaissance, started by Raja Ram Mohan Roy in Bengal and Jyotirao Phule in Maharashtra, Narayana Guru in Kerala and Periyar Ramaswamy Naicker in Tamil Nadu, began with the question of women’s liberation from sati, child marriage and illiteracy.

    Ayyappa was also always for women’s spiritual equality.

    Like Narayana Guru, Vijayan too comes from the Ezhava community. He joined the Communist movement during his student days and has now started the ‘new renaissance’ for good. All the progressive forces — liberals, constitutionalists and women — must support this movement, otherwise, Indian society as a whole would suffer a huge setback.

    Vijayan realises that the demand to restrict women’s entry into the temple is backed by the upper caste men of the RSS. He has rightly called it an ‘upper caste conspiracy’.   It is not usual for Communist leaders of Kerala to attack the casteist culture perpetuated by upper castes. In the garb of class politics, they protected casteism for a long time — but now, Vijayan has taken a bold step by calling it out.

    Vijayan has started mobilising the OBC, Dalit and Adivasi groups to counter the Brahmanic anti-women and anti-Ayyappa politics. He is already getting huge support from the Periyarites of Tamil Nadu. There is a common cultural bonding in the use of a black dress code by Ayyappa devotees and Periyar followers.

    How can the RSS-BJP and other Sangh Parivar affiliates, who never respected the black colour or wore the Ayyappa mala, now call for who should and shouldn’t visit the temple?

    The saffron brigade has started this movement to overthrow the Communist government in Kerala.

    However, if Vijayan decides to stay the course, he will not only save his government, but also the Ayyappan culture and India as a nation.

  • Launched – “From A Shepherd Boy To An Intellectual–My Memoirs”

    BOOK LAUNCH

    The Launch of an Indian Shepherd’s Autobiography at Hyderabad

    The first Shudra Autobiography in English

    “From A Shepherd Boy To An Intellectual–My Memoirs”

    By Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd

    will be launched

    at

    Hyderabad Book Fair

    NTR Stadium Indira Park, Lower Tank Bund, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana 500029

    by Chandra Mukhi (Transgender) on 17 December, 2018 at 6 PM.

    Speakers:

    Archbishop Most Rev. Dr. Joseph Dsouza, President of All India Christian Council

    Kalpana Kannabiran,

     Dr. Ram Bheenaveni Shepherd.

    The Author will autograph the books after the launch

     

     

  • BOOK LAUNCH

    The Launch of an Indian Shepherd’s Autobiography at Hyderabad

    The first Shudra Autobiography in English “From A Shepherd Boy To An Intellectual–My Memoirs”

    By Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd will be launched

    at

    Hyderabad Book Fair

    NTR Stadium Indira Park, Lower Tank Bund, Kavadiguda, Hyderabad, Telangana 500029

    by

    Chandra Mukhi (Transgender)

    on 17 December, 2018 at 6 PM.

    Speakers:

    Archbishop Most Rev. Dr. Joseph Dsouza, President of All India Christian Council

    Kalpana Kannabiran,

    Dr. Ram Bheenaveni Shepherd.

    The Author will autograph the books after the launch

    For Detail, kindly contact the below:

    Nava Telangana Book Distributor – 9490099954, 9490099954

  • Two Patriarchies

    1. India’s right wing is quick to condemn Talibani patriarchy. But they outrage over the calling out of Brahminical patriarchy
    Brahminical Patriarchy
    The poster must be seen against the backdrop of what is happening in the Sabarimala temple in Kerala.

    The photograph of Twitter CEO, Jack Dorsey, holding a poster while standing alongside some Indian journalists and Dalit-Bahujan women activists, is being made into a big issue by Brahminical forces from BJP/RSS platforms. The poster read “Smash Brahminical Patriarchy”. Union minister Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore, apart from T V Mohandas Pai and others, made it an alarmist issue and some even used it as opportunity to intimidate the journalists and activists.

    The poster must be seen against the backdrop of what is happening in the Sabarimala temple in Kerala. The issue of women of menstruating age, between 10 and 50, not being into the shrine has drawn global attention. It is known that the RSS/BJP is supporting the anti-women agitation at Sabarimala. This, after the Supreme Court judgment in favour of women’s entry. The same group mobilised Muslim women against triple talaq for their freedom. However, in Sabarimala, they are mobilising Brahminical women against their own rights. Would the world understand this shift in stance?

    The Western world, which follows a more liberal brand of spiritual engagement of women, sees this as the Indian version of Talibani patriarchy. The Talibani patriarchy wants the Muslim woman’s body to be hidden from men’s view in public. It is from this context that a Malala Yousafzai emerged from Pakistan as the global campaigner for girls/women’s rights to be equal with boys and men.

    Brahminical patriarchy has constructed an equally horrible image of India by not allowing menstruating women to visit temples. The man’s body, which contains semen, a crucial bodily fluid, is acceptable, and he gets all the rights; but, a woman’s body, with its menstrual fluid, is deemed unacceptable, and she can’t get the same rights. This is shocking. Let’s assume that Dorsey looks at the poster from that point of view and wants to oppose this form of patriarchy. What is wrong with that? Can we hide what is happening in Sabarimala from the world’s gaze?

    The Hindutva-Brahminism clique thinks that the world should hate Talibani patriarchy but not Brahminical patriarchy. The question here is: Why should this kind of patriarchy be called Brahminical? Why is it not ever labelled Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi patriarchy? Historically, and spiritually, the theory of the woman’s body and its “pollution” is a Brahminical construct. In the Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi spiritual system, there is no such man-woman difference in spiritual systems. Ayyappa, for example, was/is an Adivasi/Shudra/Dalit deity. Mostly, it is they who take the Ayyappa mala and wear black dresses, and go there. Brahmins would generally not do this. But the protests are being organised by the same forces who respect saffron as a Hindu colour but not the black dress code or colour of the Dalit-Bahujans.

    The practice of women visiting the temple along with their husbands/ sons/brothers was very much a part of the spiritual experience at Sabarimala — it was also, usually, a Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi practice. Only after the Kerala Brahmin priests took over the shrine by overthrowing the tribal priests was the new tradition of women being disallowed imposed.

    A similar attempt is also being made to change the traditions of the famous Sammakka/Sarakka Jatara — a tribal festival celebrated in Telangana. The Vishva Hindu Parishad is trying to displace the tribal priests who drink liquor and eat meat during the jatara time, hand over the temple to Brahmin priests, and convert the jatara into a vegetarian space. The RSS has created structures that convert Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi temples into Brahmin/Hindu temples, and impose very primitive practices on the devotees.

    The historical difference between Brahminical patriarchy and Shudra/ Dalit/Adivasi patriarchy is that the former practiced sati, child marriage and permanent widowhood. The latter, what I call the Dalit-Bahujan patriarchy, has no such practices.

    Some Brahmin reformers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar (Bengal), and, Gurajada Apparao and Tanguturi Prakasam Pantulu (Andhra), tried to reform Brahminical patriarchy. Some changes have come about because of that. But the RSS is negating all those reforms and pushing back society to the pre-reform stage with a theory of Hindu parampara and sanskriti. It wants reforms in Indian Islam (by opposing triple talaq and so on), but it wants to set the so-called Hindu society back. The Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi culture and heritage (in their language, parampara) reflect a democratic man-woman relationship. That is because both men and women of the community have been working in the fields for millennia, from the days of the Harappan civilisation almost 1,500 years before the Rig Veda was written or codified. But the RSS and those who follow their ideology would treat just Brahminic parampara and sanskriti as Indian, denying the ethos of the productive agrarian communities, which is much older than the Brahminic parampara.

    Though patriarchy exists within both cultures, Brahminical patriarchy is more oppressive and undemocratic. For example, there has always existed the right to remarry among the Shudra/ Dalit/Adivasi cultures. But, among the Brahmin/Bania/Kshatriyas, this is still a problem. This needs to be debated and changed.

    With Sabarimala getting the world’s attention, the Indian and global public spheres are debating patriarchy. When these forces, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, are appealing to the global order to oppose Talibanism, how can  the same people prevent the global community from opposing Brahminical patriarchy?

  • RSS/BJP And The Shudra Neo-Slaves

    What is the status of Shudras who constitute the largest social bloc in India? In the North India, the Yadavs, Kurmis of Bihar, Yadavs and Jats of Uttar Pradesh, Gujjars of Rajsthan, the Shudras of Bengal, who are still outside the bracket of Bhadralok, the Patels of Gujarat, Marathas and Kumbis of Maharashtra, Lingayats, Vakkalingas of Karanataka, Nairs and Menons of Kerala, Modaliars, Nayakars of Tamilnadu, Kammas, Reddys and Velamas of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana constitute the top layer of Shudras in the country. In other states and regions there are other such Shudra agrarian castes that do not come under the Mandal commission reservation. In some states similar castes exist without exposure to the outside of their own state and civil society. Apart from these major upper layers of the Shudras in all states the Other Backward Classes listed for reservation are also part of the larger Shudra category of India.

    This category of people have been constructed as the fourth Varna—Shudra—by the Brahmin writers in the Vedas and since then they remain as Shudras without equal rights with Brahmins, Baniyas, Kshatriyas of India in many spheres of life. Every subsequent Brahmin writer—Kautilya, Manu finally the most powerful ideologue of RSS MS Golwalaker made the maintenance of this Varna dharma order the life blood of the Hindu religion and the nation. Golwalkar said the Hindu Nation would be “The place where a people characterized by Varnas and Ashramas”— that is, following the Hindu frame-work of society, obeying the Hindu codes, in short subscribing to the Hindu religion and culture (the culture of caste). The people of the country must be Hindus by religion and culture and consequently by language to be really included in the concept ‘Janpad’ (he wrote this word in Hindi). This is a component of the Rashtra idea of the ancient Hindus (We are our nationhood defined, pp 54-55). The Hindu Rashtra that now the RSS and BJP want to crystallise through power in Delhi even with the help of Ambedkarite constitutional institutions  is that the ancient kind of varna order that got disturbed with the rise of Shudra regional rulers. Also reservation has to be restored by all means. This agenda is central to RSS than any other agenda.

    Golwalkar’s book appears to be mainly against Muslims but the RSS/BJP cannot take away their individual and collective access to their Allah. All forces in that community are guaranteed that right to spiritual equality.  But its larger strategy is to not to allow the Shudras any accessibility to Hindu God within the Hindu religious system. This is a greater problem because the spiritual equality is basic and more important than political citizenship rights. The Shudras have not had that critical spiritual citizenship rights for millennia and the RSS/BJP are determined to maintain status quo. Unfortunately, the Shudras are their main muscle and vote power base. They do not know that they are burning their own house.

    The constitutional status as citizens did not change the status of Shudras in the Hindu religion and also civil society even after 70 years of independence. The Shudras appear to have accepted that religious subordination to Brahmins and in business entrepreneurship to Baniyas. The Brahmin Baniyas of present day under the BJP/RSS rule have enough money and full control of the spiritual power. They seem to think that the Brahmin control on Sanskrit language helped them to maintain the Varna order in ancient times and their control of English now will be of immense use. English has become their nationalist language, a fact the Shudras have not at all understood.

    Their position as superior people to Dalits and Adivasis also did not change. These communities practice untouchability and oppress the Dalits in the country. Now the Dalits are known as the fifth Varna and are fighting massive battle for liberation.

    The upper Shudras were of the view, particularly after Independence, that they would be the Neo-Kshatriya s of India. That was because a section of them became big land owners during the British rule. In the princely states also they acquired feudal land holdings. In the Nizam state, for example, the Reddys and Velamas became the feudal land owners and acquired political power through that landed property.

    So long as India was basically agrarian they controlled the vote base and hence developed a feeling that they were the real ruling elite or what was sociologically called dominant castes. In the early days of Independence the communist movement mainly targeted them by using a borrowed concept ‘feudal lords’ without realizing that because of caste character of Indian feudalism these land-owning people would not transform into capitalists, as it happened in Europe.

    The Indian capitalist class mainly came from Baniya or merchant caste but not from the Shudra landed castes. As of now there are no Jat, Gujjar, Patel, Maratha, Reddy, Kamma, Lingayat or Vakkalinga, Modaliar, Nair industrialists of the kind that you see from Baniyas, Marwaris and also Brahmins in the software industry. The caste-capital nexus has become clearer after the BJP came to power—particularly in 2014.

    After the Bharatiya Janatha Party/Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh came to power at Delhi in 2014, the Shudra upward mobility seems to have taken a downward direction. At the time of Independence they thought they would play the role of classical Kshatriyas putting their feet in the shoes of classical Kshatriyas as Neo-Kshatriyas. But the emergence of the Rastriya Swayamsevak Sangh under the leadership of the modern Brahmins and the strong bondage that the RSS built with the Baniyas, who became very powerful industrial capitalists, the entire Shudra masses have now become Neo-Slaves.

    Not a single Shudra leader was allowed to become the Sarsanchalak of the RSS. Nor does the RSS fight for the priesthood rights of the Shudra Hindus with properly established theological schools, colleges in Hinduism. The RSS has a concealed and well knit relationship with all the Sankara peethas and major temples such as Tirupati, Puri Jagannath, Vaishnava Devi and so on. And it operates in a manner that the Shudras remain spiritual slaves of Brahmin priest craft and financially in the margins of the Baniya capital. The strength of the Baniya capital became highly visible only after Narenda Modi and Amit Shah became the real rulers of Delhi. Till then even the nexus between Baniya capital and Baniya politics was also not very clear. In the realm of Hindu spiritual system (which is back bone for electoral operations), the Shudras have not acquired any significant spiritual and philosophical space.

    The fixing of Shudras as the fourth Varna was to deny education and spiritual priesthood. In the Vedic times the Shudras were denied of the spiritual rights wherein the right to read and write spiritual ideas would throw up thinkers from their fold. They were confined to cattle grazing tasks and building the meat and milk economy for the well being of the Brahmin, Kshatriya  and Vaishya communities. This situation has not fundamentally changed even in the modern capitalist era.

    Control over God, using the language with which the priest engages with God was used as a weapon to keep the Shudras as the physical labour force. In order to perpetually continue their hegemony, the Brahmin spiritual intellectual force worked out various strategies to keep the Shudras under their grip. The Shudras have not attempted to weaken that grip of Brahmins and Baniyas even by the beginning of the 21 century.

    The Shudras controlled state power in some parts of India in various times in history. The control of state power either in medieval times or in modern times, either during the phase of monarchical rule or of democratic rule in different parts of India, did not change their philosophical and spiritual location. Political power operates under the control of spiritual and philosophical power. Unless they acquire philosophical and spiritual equality with Brahmins or they completely go away from their control the mediocre position of the Shudras will not change. Unless the position of the Shudras changes in the spiritual and philosophical position the position of Dalits also will not change fundamentally. Because the Brahmin intellectuals, both in spiritual and secular domains, also would see to it that the Dalits are controlled by the Shudras themselves. This is a dialectical process of control and liberation. A social force that does not have the ambition of total equality with Brahmins in spiritual and philosophical domains does not allow the other social forces below them to be liberated from their own oppression and suppression.

    If the Shudras get freed from this psychological slavery from Brahminism, the liberated Shudras also would not allow the Dalit liberation to follow. They are interlinked because caste hierarchy is interlinked.

    The RSS never proposed that the Hindu priestly position should be caste free. They defend the hereditary Brahmin priesthood in the name of custom and Agama ordination. If they build a centralised Ram temple where the Shudras and Dalits have no right to priesthood, their spiritual slavery will increase. The Brahmin priests will also run the Indian state like the medieval Papaldom in Europe and Khalifas in the Middle East. The Shudras/Dalits and Adivasis will be finished in that system. The BJP/RSS are planning take the Shudra/Dalits to medievalism. Since the Brahmins benefit most in such a system they may help the process of building centralised temples with the same Shudra labour. This is Brahmin community’s ploy to keep even the top rich Shudras, leave alone Hindu OBCs and Dalits, under their hegemony. Once that philosophical position is taken over by Shudras lot of changes are likely to follow.

    If the priesthood rights are accessed by the Shudras, the Hindu spiritual system will undergo a revolutionary change. Once the spiritual power shifts into their hands Shudras—Kammas, Reddys, Patels, Jats, Gujjars, Yadavs, and the entire other OBC social forces—will also change the fundamental basis of the Indian education system. Today the Indian education system is under the control of Brahmins—particularly the higher education is fully in their grip. This has serious negative implications to the whole Shudra education. Mahatma Phule predicted this long back. Subsequently not many Shudra leaders, intellectuals and activists understood the modern mechanism of the Brahminic operation in higher education. Unfortunately a major leader like Sardar Patel did not realize this problem and unlike Ambedkar he did not prepare any roadmap for the Shudra transformation by changing the caste relations in Hinduism, which he thought was his own religion more rigidly than Nehru did. Nehru, though by the accident of birth in a Brahmin family got everything that the RSS founder Hedgewar got and more but went against his thought by saying that by belief he was a ‘Buddhist’.  He never went with Gandhi’s Hindu (Baniya) vegetarianism. He became a beeferian inviting the wrath of the RSS. But Patel quite unfortunately left his historical Shudra food culture and became vegetarian. According to Aakar Patel, as of now all Patels have become sadly pure vegetarians leaving their historical food culture.

    All along while Gandhi was arguing the Varna-dharma system should not be disturbed and the caste hierarchy in Hinduism should remain as it was, Patel never protested against that view of Gandhi and the practice in the Hindu religion. Patel betrayed Mahatma Phule and Periyar Ramsami Naikar. That is the reason why the Brahmin RSS sarsanachalaks owned him and now built a biggest statue for him. Meanwhile the whole Shudra community lost a modernist philosophical vision. In a way Patel blinded them and that is the reason why the RSS/BJP celebrate his ‘Iron Brain’. It is this iron brain of Shudras that brought the RSS/BJP to power in the Centre. Now the Shudras have to fight far greater battle than the Dalits are fighting to get out of the neo-slavery.

    They have to fight for reservation based on scientifically collected caste census. When the entire Shudra population also comes into reservation bloc the service sector job market of the Brahmins, Baniyas and Kshatriyas will shrink. A section of them will have to move into agrarian production and labour market. Even if a section of Brahmin-Baniyas are pushed into the domain of physical labour their philosophical orientation of life and social relations will change. From their de-humanised position, they begin to change into the process of humanization. Their work in political parties, or secular institutions, outside the domain of basic production has no bearing on social change. Because the basic hierarchies remained the same and the caste cultural relations of the production process has not changed in India. Only a Shudra rebellion against Brahminism can achieve this. The present Dalit/OBC revolt cannot achieve this goal. The RSS and its allied organizations stopped that change quite consciously.

    The Brahmins not allowing this change is not surprising. But the Shudras not aspiring for the leadership of change for millennia—including in the post-Independence India- is surprising. There is a schotoma  (mental bloc) within the Shudra civil society that they are incapable of handling philosophical and spiritual questions. This schotoma can be overcome only with massive English mediums education for their children. They have to get out of the Sanskritic social stagnation.

    The status and position of the Shudras in the national politics and Hindu religion is systematically being controlled by political Brahmin/Baniyas. Their religious status has not changed from that of the classical Shudra position in ancient India in the institutions of religion and education even by the 21 century. The classical Shudra status was that of slaves. Quite tragically they have not even produced intellectuals who could question their slave status even by now. Nor have they realized that they remain as unequal as they were in ancient times. The first condition for any social force to fight for equality is to realize that they are unequal. The second condition is to acquire the weapons of fight to achieve equality.

    The Shudras have not realized that they are unequal. Though the Dalits are far below the status of upper Shudras they have realized that they are unequal and they are acquiring the weapons of fight for equality. The Shudras so far have not acquired the weapons of fight. The key weapon is education in a language that could understand the entire structure of conspiracy of Brahminic forces. Right now only English language has that ability and the Shudras have not yet acquired mastery over that language.  On the contrary the Brahmins and also Banais have acquired that mastery over English, apart from Sanskrit, which was their weapon to control Shudras in the spiritual domain.

    Historically the Shudras are agrarian and artisanal and service communities which made the Indian economy sustain and progress. Their labour power has produced wealth. But this Shudra identity of theirs is lost because of thousands of castes that got subdivided into sub-castes. But no single caste that was part of the Shudra category moved into Brahmin, Kshatriya or Vaishya category. Their numbers have become their weakness within its own classical boundary. This nomenclature of the largest productive communities of India—Shudra—has become almost non-existent because of lack of its homogenous use and identity construction over a period of time.

    The Dalit-Bahujan identity that I constructed in ‘Why I am Not a Hindu’ has put the Shudra upper castes outside that definition. We need to re-imagine the old identity of Shudra in a new way. To overthrow the Brahmin-Baniya hegemony in the religion, civil society and political society this re-imaging of the Shudra identity is very, very important.

    Once the Mandal reservation came into practice the castes outside the pale of reserved category—who are known as the upper Shudras—believed that they do not belong to the Shudra category at all. They started believing that they are the neo-Kshatriyas of the Hindu society. But with Mohan Bhagwat, Suresh Joshi (Brahmins) Narendra Modi, Amit Shah (Baniyas), Rajnath Singh and Yogi Aditynath (Kshatriya) controlling the whole system, the Shudras of all categories have lost even the regional power. The Neo-Kshatriya ambition built for themselves got dashed to the ground.

    From late the 1960s onwards, the landed feudals among these castes went on building an image that the poor Shudras have nothing to do with them. Since the Brahmins and Baniyas were obeying them in the religious and business activities within the local environment they thought they are the rulers. They started projecting them themselves as Neo-Kshatriya. They added all kinds of surnames or titles that have neo-Kshatriya essence—for example, Singh (lion), Choudari, Patel, Reddy, Rao, Nair, Yadav, Mandal and so on. These titles have given them a feeling that they transformed themselves into the Neo-Kshatriya category. The feudal landed financial status, neo-kshatriya titles have given an impression that they have become equals to Brahmins and Baniyas. But at no point of time they acquired control on a language that has the Pan-Indian presence. The present society does not run with lion’s muscles or with Iron Man’s long hands it runs with a soft power—knowledge.

    In the modern period, particularly after India achieved independence they acquired some regional language education. It gave them a psychological feeling that they have acquired modernity and Kshatriya status. Quite tragically all these castes remained regional power blocs only. They have not acquired an all India identity like what the Brahmins and Baniyas acquired. More than that they could not get into an educational realm that gave them Pan-Indian language, national and global vision. They remained muscle-men to execute the Brahminic Pan-Indian plans. This is what RSS kind of organization needed. They have never developed a critical mind of enquiry and reasoning. They were happy with feudal grain treasures and village power.

    During the very same period the Brahmin priest in the village connected himself with national Hindu philosophical centre and village Baniya had established connections with national mercantile/ capitalist centre. If the RSS became that philosophical centre in the  religious domain the Bombay-based Baniya capital became the business centre. No Shudra could get well connected to both these centers. The Shudras have never realized that the higher national political power was/is linked up to these two Pan-Indian structures. Every religious structure has its own central agency and every business class/caste has its own headquarter. Even the Shudra feudal forces never got nexus with these central structures. Hence they remained at the national periphery.

    After the RSS got established, it has been operating as the headquarters of Hinduism. It is fully in the grip of Brahmins. The headquarters of capitalist/business economy in Mumbai, in the hands of Baniyas. Shudras have no decision making role in any one of these structures. They are completely in the peripheries of spiritual thought and economic thought.

    The Shudras have got into deep controlled consciousness that they need to be slaves only. They cannot think of an independent existence for themselves. This slavishness is historical and continued to operate among them. They cannot think of an autonomous operation in the realm of religion and philosophy. The RSS has understood this. Hence it makes only a Brahmin as Sarsanchalak always, like the Hindu priests of temples come from Brahmins.

    This is clear after 2014 elections. The Shudras voted for the BJP and handed over power to Brahmins, Baniyas and Kastriyas, which is a very classical form of rule. The Shudras used their constitutional right to vote against their own selves.

    The Shudra slavery stands out in the accepted slavish mindset of the Nair caste of Kerala, for example. Historically till the early 20th century the Nair community allowed its women to live as concubines of Brahmin men in a system called Sambhandam. They were given the right to procreate children without having any responsibility towards their life and wellbeing. This mindset has not changed. Even though they do not have the right to become priests in Hindu temples and they do not control the philosophical ruins of Hindu religious system. The way the Nair Service Society forced their women to come into the streets and oppose the Supreme Court Judgment of 2018 that all women can enter the Ayyappa Temple is a clear indication. Their women were made to oppose their own right to enter into the temple if they are in the menstruating age of 10 to 50. Hundreds of women were asked to come into streets to protest against their own spiritual right to get into the temple.

    The theory of women between the age of 10 to 50 (menstrual age) should not enter into the Ayyappa temple was constructed by the Namboodri Brahmins of Kerala. Though the Shudras have no role in constructing that theory they believe that every word that Brahmin tells is true and divine and they need to work according to that Brahmin theory. Not a single Nair emerged as spiritual philosopher and challenged Brahmins and took over the temple priesthood and codified the principles of divine practice. They only implement what Brahmins codify as spiritual principles. They believed that Brahmin theory that the Nair women should live as concubines of Brahmin without rights and freedoms in the past. They now believe what Brahmins wrote as a principle that women between 10 and 50 are impure as they menstruate they should not enter temples and implement that theory by forcing their own women. The Nairs do that with a belief that it is true and act accordingly.

    If only they were to get into English medium education in the modern period they would have understood the importance of religion and capital in philosophical and economic domains. They lost out even in the modern period. They never realized at any time in history—more so in modern times—mind power can easily control the muscle power. The Shudras got enrolled into the RSS Vyayamashalas but never got enrolled into the Christian English medium schools. The Brahmins and Baniyas did the opposite.

    In ancient India they could not get into Sanskrit language education which had the Sub-Continental presence. They did not get into Persian language education during the Muslim rule—particularly during Mogul rule. Even subsequently they did not get into Urdu education which has a Pan-Indian presence. During the colonial period and subsequently, even after Independence, they did not get into English medium education. On the contrary they became regional language Chaunists. These castes did not produce thinkers who could handle national issues and philosophical questions.

    They never believed in the power of education but strongly believed in the power of land and money. But at the same time they did not think of transforming their land power into business power so that they could enter into the capitalist entrepreneurship.

    They never put their children in high end English medium schools. In fact they never thought education is power among them. They believed land as power and the neo-Kshatriya titles that they acquired.  That is how Reddy, Rao, Patil, Choudary, Yadav, Goud, Nayak, Nair, Mandal (in West Bengal and Bihar) were used as surnames. These surnames or the titles as caste names helped them to control local power. These castes also acquired early local and regional political power even after the election system was introduced. The village level police and revenue power came to them from Brahmins and Muslims (in certain areas like the Nizam State and Mysore the Muslim Zamindari was also strong.). But a place to which the police station is not a match is the Hindu temple. They never understood the philosophical principle that God controls everything—including the gun.

    When feudal hold on the village vote system operated as a strong instrument the Indian National Congress leaders, particularly Nehru understood their village level power and promoted some Shudra land lords at the national level, as some of them have a history of participating in the nationalist struggles. Sardar Vallabhai Patel, Kamaraj Nadar, Neelam Sanjeeva Reddy, Nijalingappa, YB Chavan emerged as national level leaders by handling raw politics with some creative ideas, but none emerged as leader and thinker who could handle philosophical, historical and theological questions. Subsequently Chaudari Charan Singh and HD Deve Gowda became the Prime Ministers of India for short period each. But because they did have not have philosophical vision and English education to back it up, they did not leave any imprint on the socio-spiritual and political system of India.

    In the bureaucratic set-up, even the Shudra feudal families could not acquire a hold because as they had no English medium education. Tthey also did not think about the need for putting their children into the sophisticated English medium schools and colleges within India and abroad. Putting the children in the suitable educational institution is a philosophical and ideological issue. It is not just a question of money. There was a spiritual opposition for long time on Shudras getting educated and it became a question of orientation in due course of caste cultural existence. For example, the Brahmins made a philosophical question that the Hindu God should be communicated only in Sanskrit language at the same time to handle national and global institutions their children should study in English medium schools—preferably in Christian schools.

    Even the Shudra landlords thought that their children were not suitable for that kind of educational life. Most of the Shudra land lords were uncritical admirers of Gandhi and Nehru and they thought that they would never reach their national and international stature. The real problem was in the caste cultural tradition itself. They always carried an intellectual inferiority complex vis-a-via Brahmins and Baniyas. The image of Gandhi had strengthened the village level Baniyas. For example, most of the Baniyas, across the country, even at the village level were vegetarians. They must have got this food cultural tradition because of their Jain tradition, but Gandhi made it more respectable at Pan-India level by taking up a massive campaign of linking of human food culture and his theory of non-violence. His family and the Baniya vegetarianism was historical and it started with Gandhi. He campaigned as if that was Hindu tradition in which Shudras were also part. Even Patel seems to have never opposed this kind anti-Shudra cultural value. As I said Shuras were historically multi-cuisine eaters. But Gandhi gave his family and caste food culture a nationalist twist and projected all meat or beef eaters as violent people.

    The Gandhian campaign of vegetarianism went well with the North, South and West Indian Brahmins, who took to vegetarianism by then. The Post Shankaracharya Brhaminism in these regions took to vegetarianism and established as spiritually validated theory that Vegetarinism is pure food and meatarianism is impure food. But that theory became more anti-Shudra food cultural theory. Gandhi became the most modern nationalist puritan by acquiring big a place for Baniyas in modern vegetarian Hinduism. Though the spiritual Brahmins had a problem with Gandhi they invited his image into their homes very easily with vegetarian nationalism.

    The only Brahmin community that did not go with that vegetarian ideology was that of the Eastern India. They were fish and meat eaters. But they did not contest the Gandhian vegetarian superiority campaign. Though by and large the Shudras of India are not vegetarian and they felt ashamed to talk about their historical meaterian food culture. The Muslims and Christian got ghettoized in this environment and even their universal food culture was projected impure.

    In this process some Shudra castes in North India even turned to pure vegetarianism. The Patidars of Gujarath are one such converts. In the process the Shudras, Dalits, Adivasis began to be seen violent dull headed people because they eat meat/beef. This aspect of Baniya-Brahmin discourse not only constructed the Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi communities as violent, but were made to be seen closer to Muslims and Christians, who never believed in pure vegetarianism and food related non-violence. The Baniyas and Brahmins projected their caste culture as Hindu (religious) culture. The RSS/BJP used the same civil societal space to capture power in multiple fields—social, spiritual, political and economic. Now they want to impose pure vegetarianism on the whole nation, which is going to weaken the nation.

    The Shudras did not understand the implications of leaving everything historically theirs and adopting the Brahmin-Baniya culture as theirs and also as national. Quite tragically while the Indian culture, civilization is said to have started with writing of Rigveda, which text actually divided the Indian society into four varnas. But 1500 before this text was written the city of Harappa was built. To build that city along with other cities humans used all the artisanal skills that still survive among the Indian Shudra communities. The food culture of Harappans matches with that of the Shudra/Dalit/Adivasi food culture but not with Brahmin/Baniya food culture. There was no notion of pure vegetarianism before the Jain sect emerged in the 7th century BC. The RSS/BJP will make India a Jain nation in the name of Hindu Nationalism. That will destroy the nation’s productive abilities.

    The most dangerous aspect of the RSS is its commitment to sustain the classical varnadharma, with the Shudras being at the bottom to serve three  varnas above them. That means even if the untouchability is abolished all the Dalits will be part of Shudra Varna and Tribals should also be added to the Shudra Varna once this phase of reservation is over. But the Brahmins/Baniyas/Kshatriyas will be as they are above all, with all the classical privileges. This is very in Golwalkar’s thesis. In his manifesto for establishing Hindu Rastra—WE OR OUR NATIONHOOD DEFINED he made it very, very clear. The Shudras of the nation must know what he said:

    “ The place where a people Characterized by Varnas and Ashramas enriched itself. Characterized by Varnas and Ashramas—that is following the Hindu frame- work of society, obeying the Hindu codes, in short subscribing to the Hindu Religion and Culture—that is important. The people in the country must be Hindus by Religion and consequently by Language, to be really included in the concept Janpad (written in Hindi) a component of the Rastra, idea of the ancient Hindus” This in essence means the Shudras/Dalits/Adivasis should be where they were in ancient and medieval periods and Brahmins/Baniyas and Kshatriyas should be where they were/are.

    More dangerous than this is that by invoking Manu Golwalkar lays down a code “All the people of the world to come to Hindustan to learn at the holy feet of the Eldest—born Brahmanas of this land”. In the modern Hindu Rastra the status of Brahmins should be what it was in the Vedic period where the Shudras were the slaves.  If they are expecting the global Christians, Muslims, Buddhists to come to learn at the feet of Hedgewars, Golwalkars, Mohan Bhagwats and so on, one can imagine the fate of the Shudras/Dalits and Adivasis of India in future.

    Prof. Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd Chairman T-MASS and political theorist.

  • Why there is no scope for the liberation of Shudras in RSS’ Hindu Rashtra

    The outcome of 2019 Lok Sabha elections depends on the Shudra realisation of their spiritual and socio-political status in the ‘RSS Hindutva realm’.

    KANCHA ILAIAH SHEPHERD

    Dev Raj Chanana in his book, Slavery in Ancient India, proves that the Shudra varna was nothing but the Dasa varna, which means slaves.

    The Shudras historically evolved from slavery to broken peasantry by medieval times. This further led to division of that varna into many sub-castes. However, the Shudras were/are the main producers of food in India then and now.

    For a long time they had no socio-spiritual relations with the Brahmin priest as the Brahmin was not even ready to touch the Shudras. By medieval times, the Shudras had their own spiritual agrarian God/Goddess figures.

    There was no link between the Shudra spiritual system and the Vedic spiritual system. Since Brahmins were recognised as bhu devatas by the rulers, any Shudra attempt to become literate was curbed violently, as Brahminism was against Shudra education.

    modi-pra-body_021018_110818064853.jpgThe Brahmin, Bania and Kshatriya unity connected by a common ‘sacred’ thread. (Credit: Twitter) 

    Brahmins constituted a small minority at all times. Their physical strength was drawn from the Kshatriya rulers. Although the foot soldiers were Shudras, the commanders were always Kshatriyas. Hence, any rebellion by them was easily crushed.

    After the Gupta (Vysya) dynasty established its rule in the 5th century AD, the Banias got the sole business rights and the Brahmin priests and the Banias made that rule acceptable to all.

    We must understand Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s position of power in this background.

    Although he has an Other Backward Class certificate, the Banias of India — particularly the big business owners — think that after the Gupta dynasty, they got all powers in their hands.

    Amit Shah, a non-reserved category Bania, is the real connection between the Bania business and the entire political set-up.

    Hence, in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the big businesses will play a much bigger role than what they did in 2014 to bring Modi back to power.

    However, the election outcome depends on the Shudra realisation of their spiritual and socio-political status in the RSS Hindutva realm. After the 2014 elections, the Shudras of North India lost whatever regional political power they had earlier.

    The Bania business and industrial houses have been playing a key role in Indian politics after 2014 elections.

    Modi and Amit Shah have no choice but to obey their rule as ‘natural’ leaders of that community.

    Historically, the Bania ‘business success’ is infamous for its ‘extractionist’ policies. The priest and king in the medieval times were happy with that kind of business since the shahukar fed the priest, the temple as well as the state treasury with such immorally earned money.

    The Brahmin, Bania and Kshatriya unity connected by a common Janeu (sacred thread), the right to education for all three castes (varnas in Vedic language) got stabilised by the time the Muslim rule got established.

    together_110818065103.jpgThe big businesses will play a much bigger role than what they did in 2014 to bring Modi back to power. (Credit: PTI photo)

    The ‘Janeu’ is a citizenship marker for the Hindu for spiritual, social and political engagement.

    If a Shudra became a king by physical force, the priestly class offered him Kshatriya-hood and separated him from his Shudra lineage.

    The king’s children thereafter got the right ‘Janeu’, education and political rule. That family’s citizenship rights were guaranteed and the Brahmin priest would serve him with all respect.

    The right to religious citizenship is more important than political citizenship in India because it has more impact on the human behaviour. The Shudras of India do not have that spiritual right in Hinduism even now, ever since the Rig Veda was written.

    In North India, castes like the Jats, Yadavs (though they are called people of Srikrishna heritage) Gujjars, Patels, Marthas to Dhobis and Nayees were considered to be Shudras who are physically touchable, but spiritually untouchable in Varnadharma Hinduism of modern times.

    Their right to enter temples could be termed as post-Muslim rule achievements. The so-called Bhakti movement was Muslim era concession in which Shudras were given some spiritual status in order to checkmate conversion of Shudras into Islam. But even then the Shudras were not given the spiritual citizenship as that would destabilise the Varna order in a big way.

    babri_110818065742.jpgThe RSS skillfully shifted the political debate from Mandal and caste to religion with Mandir politics. (Credit: India Today)

    KB Hedgewar and MS Golwalkar were very particular about protecting that Varnadharma in a ‘Hindu Rastra’.

    The Muslim rulers respected and safeguarded the Varnadharma order because the spiritual unity among all non-Muslims would have caused a political crisis. Muslim scholars did not write a single book on caste system at any point of time in history because they were scared of the Brahmin wrath.

    Until 1915, the year in which the All India Hindu Mahasabha was established, there was no political institution to organise Hindus outside temples and the Peethas that Adishankara had established.

    The All India Hindu Mahasabha was established under a Brahmin leadership with Bania finance while the Kshatriyas worked with it as integral Hindu citizens.

    The Shudras were mobilised around it without giving any spiritual citizenship rights.

    But the real political mass structure to organise the much bigger Shudra mass into the Hindu fold by highlighting the Muslim threat (not so much Christians as they did not want to invite the anger of British rulers) came into existence with the establishment of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh by Brahmin leaders  in 1925.

    By then, the Brahmin Bania youth were going to English-medium schools. Sanskrit got disconnected from Brahmin families across India.

    Hedgewar and Golwalkar were educated in English-medium colleges. The former was a doctor and later was a lecturer in the Banaras Hindu University.

    In urban areas, the anti-Muslim agenda attracted lot of Shudra youths who could hardly go to schools and colleges.

    The visible spiritual symbols of Islam like a beard without moustache, the skull cap and the invisible but religious circumcision were used as ‘anti-India markers’ to enthuse the Shudra youth.

    But they were never allowed to become conscious of their own lack of Hindu marker — the Janeu. It was a highly skillful operation.

    From 1915, the Hindu Mahasabha and from 1925, the RSS never asked for all Hindus getting equal rights in the Hindu religious system — the right to Janeu and the right to priesthood in mainstream temples.

    On the contrary, the right to Janeu for Shudras (leave alone Dalits and Adivasis) was not even allowed to come up for discussion. The most important right to priesthood in the organised non-Shudra temples was also never discussed.

    mandal_110818065408.jpgThe anti-Mandal protests stoked ‘caste fires’ among the youths. (Credit: Twitter)

    However, by 1990, the anti-Muslim and anti-Christian campaign became a massive issue. Thousands of Shudra youths got mobilised into the movement. By then, the Brahmin-Bania and Ksatriya youths were mostly in engineering, medicine and civil service training centres. Most of them were trained in private English-medium schools. The RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha never opposed their children going to English-medium schools and colleges.

    But they were totally opposed to English-medium teaching in government schools across the country. It was a very intelligent strategy. That kept even the Shudra land-owning castes away by the time globalisation began.

    Even today, there are very few English-speaking and writing individuals among them.

    The RSS and the Hindu Mahasabha organised the anti-reservation movement which worked against the few educated Shudra youths in the colleges and universities in terms of securing jobs.

    They also weaved the anti-Muslim campaign around the Ram Mandir with the Shudra youths also taking to the streets. Their anti-Mandal campaign mobilsed the Brahmin-Bania, Ksatriya (and the unreserved Shudra) youths who finally took to the streets. This was being done with a slogan of “Hindu Unity”. The Shudras did not realise their status till they started the recent reservation movement — for instance by the Jats, Gujjars, Patels and Marathas.

    However, the Shudras as a whole did not understand the hidden strategy. Golwalkar made one thing very clear. In his book, We or Our Nationhood Defined, Golwalkar said the Hindu Rastra that we establish would see that “people of the world will come to Hindustan to learn their duties at the holy feet of the eldest born Brahamanas of this land”.

    Amid such cultural beliefs of the RSS, where is the scope for liberation of Shudras?

  • The Shudras Want Empowerment, Not a Giant Statue of Their Iron Man

    The stories of Patel, Gandhi and Nehru are parables of the status of Shudras, Banias and Brahmins in India.

    Prime Minister Naredra Modi will unveil a statue of Vallabhbhai Patel – the tallest statue in the world – on October 31. This is happening at a time when the Patels, Jats, Gujjars, Marathas – the top layer of the north Indian Shudras, to which Patel belonged – are fighting to be categorised as Other Backward Classes to gain access to government reservations. If they succeed, the Shudras of India will unite in a single socio-political bracket, which can lead to a massive re-organisation of the country’s social relations. On this occasion, it is important to assess the status of Patel and the Shudras in the Hindu religion and the Indian socio-political system.

    An assessment of Patel is best done via comparison with Mohandas Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, the two main leaders he worked with during the freedom movement and, for some time, in independent India. The stories of Patel, Gandhi and Nehru are parables of the status of Shudras, Banias and Brahmins in India.

    Also Read: With Modi Set to Unveil Statue of Unity, Gujarat’s Farmers, Tribals Plan Protests

    Patel was a Shudra from Gujarat, Gandhi a Bania from the same state, and Nehru a Brahmin with Kashmiri origins from what was then the United Provinces and is now Uttar Pradesh. Their status in the Hindu religion differed quite significantly. Patel had slave origins in the Vedic period, Gandhi had early trading (middle varna) origins and Nehru had priestly origins. Gandhi and Nehru had the right to wear the sacred thread, the janeu. Patel had no such right, just as the Shudras still don’t have that right today, even though they are considered to be Hindu.

    Patel’s ancestors had no right to education, no accessibility to the Vedic gods and this was enshrined in the sacred texts of the Hindu religion. Gandhi and Nehru’s ancestors had that access from the beginnings of the Hindu religion in Vedic times, and the right to education – in Sanskrit, but also in other languages as time went on.

     

    Patel’s ancestors were tillers of the land, cattle grazers, harvesters of crops. They were also soldiers in the service of different rulers through various periods of history – the monarchical period, the Mughal period and the colonial period, because the Shudras had a duty to defend the village and nation. The work of defence and production fell to the Dalits too, even when they were treated as being untouchable.

    Gandhi and Nehru’s ancestors never produced any goods – agriculture and physical labour were considered demeaning, Shudra domains. There are few examples of Banias or Brahmins being soldiers at any stage in history. Their vegetarianism and the notion of non-violence prohibited them from entering the army. But they depended on the Shudras’ work throughout their existence and the Shudras always served them.

    Patel served Gandhi and Nehru in the same spirit. It was in this tradition that he became the “Iron Man” of the freedom struggle, whereas Gandhi became the “Mahatma” and Nehru the “Pandit.” Patel’s moniker,  was meant to be derogatory, a declaration, in the eyes of those who coined the term, of Shudra intellectual and spiritual inferiority.

    Patel’s ancestors had no right to education till the British arrived in India. They never wrote about themselves and others did not write about them. Patel and his elder brother, Vithalbhai, were the first in his family to go to school. The tradition of Shudra illiteracy was broken in the region only during the 18th century. That was why Patel’s parents never recorded his real date of birth – his official date of birth, October 31, was invented for his school records. This is why Modi is inaugurating Patel’s statue on that day – because of the Brahminical oppression of Patel’s ancestors.

    By the time of Patel’s birth, the Brahmins and Banias had already acquired advanced education in English. Gandhi and Nehru had their dates of birth properly recorded, and had well-documented family histories. They were not self-made men – they inherited status and privilege.

    Sardar Patel, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, sardar vallabhbhai patel statue in gujarat, statue of unity cost, statue of unity location, statue of unity protests, tallest statue in the world

    Statue of Unity design. Credit: statueofunity.in

    Patel was a self-made, “hard” man – his rise relied on his brute political strength. But he never had the luxury of evolving the “soft” power of intellect. He served a role similar to that of his ancestors and never broke beyond the position assigned to him in the Brahminical system of Hinduism. Blindly, he defended this system that oppressed him. This is the unfortunate legacy he left to the Shudras.

    Today, Brahmins and Banias continue to dominate India’s politics, government and economy, and control the country. A big reason for their grip over all the structures of power is that they control the system of Hinduism that they impose upon the Shudras. The Shudras have no say in this religion that is supposed to be theirs. They have no right to be priests or to take the lead in interpreting scripture.

    Also Read: Why the Statue of Unity Hasn’t Quite Generated the Euphoria BJP Craved

    The Patels, Jats, Gujjars, Marathas and so on are fighting for reservations hoping that it will give them some space in the structures that they have been shut out of. They have thrown their support behind the Bharatiya Janata Party and it continues to pay lip service to Patel – Advani described Patel as “Abhinava” during his rath yatra before the demolition of the Babri Masjid. But under the BJP, the Shudras have become even more marginalised. The hegemony of Bania and Brahmin forces is visible everywhere in India even now.

    The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, always headed by Brahmins, admires Patel because he did not disturb the varna order. He did not ask for priesthood for the Shudras; he did not ask to wear the sacred thread himself; he did not ask that Shudras get the same rights as Banias and Brahmins in all spheres. When Gandhi decided that the first prime minister of India should be a Brahmin (Nehru), Patel obediently resigned from his post as the president of the Congress and handed it over to Nehru.

    The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh admires Patel because he did not disturb the varna order. RSS chief Mohan Bhagwat Credit: PTI

    Gandhi and Nehru wrote their own histories, leaving behind careful autobiographies. But Patel did not do this. He must have thought that his family history and his own history were not worth writing. Gandhi and Nehra archived all their writing and correspondence. Patel, as one of his biographers notes, wrote all of his letters by hand and never preserved copies, and never kept copies of the letters he received either.

    Also Read: Statue of Unity: An Open Letter to Sardar Patel by Medha Patkar

    Today, Gandhi and Nehru are known as great thinkers and their works are studied in schools, colleges and universities. Patel is known as an “Iron Man”, without any books of his own about his life, his ideas, his family, his caste. We can only learn of him from the writings of others, and even those others rarely happen to be Shudras. It is easy now for the RSS and BJP to write whatever history they want for him.

    Gandhi and Nehru wrote their own histories, leaving behind careful autobiographies. But Patel did not do this. He must have thought that his family history and his own history were not worth writing.

    Patel’s self-erasure was an unfortunately typical Shudra characteristic. They have a rich tradition of oral history and story-telling, but due to the Brahminical prohibition on Shudra literacy, they never developed a culture of writing any of this down. In fact, no Shudra leader of the freedom movement wrote an autobiography. The Hindu religion, historically, wanted Shudras to be known as people of actions but not of ideas. Patel’s life operated in that Brahminical domain. None of his descendants, unlike Gandhi and Nehru’s, became writers or politicians. His Iron Man-ship ended with him. That is how it was meant to be.

    Patel was claimed by the RSS early on, as he was seen as a close ally of the Hindu Mahasabha. As a Shudra, he did not feel the compulsion to seek any social and religious reform and so he became their man. The irony is that the RSS has championed this man but has never allowed a Shudra to become its sarsanghchalak. Except one Kshatriya – Rajendra Singh – all sarsanghchalaks have been Brahmins.

    Had Patel written down his philosophy, his views on his family and community, their work ethic and spiritual culture, perhaps the whole Shudra community would have entered the national philosophical and political discourse. Gandhi and Nehru performed that service for the Banias and Brahmins, though they only needed to add to existing traditions, not establish completely new ones for their communities.

    B.R. Ambedkar. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

    Unlike Patel, Ambedkar refused to accept his community’s unequal status under Hinduism and challenged the foundations of their spiritual and social oppression. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

    What Patel failed to do for the Shudras, another man did for the Dalits against even greater odds. B.R. Ambedkar educated himself in political thought, philosophy, scripture and rhetoric, and took up the cause of socio-spiritual reform. Unlike Patel, he refused to accept his community’s unequal status under Hinduism, and challenged the foundations of their spiritual and social oppression.

    Patel studied law, but did not show any interest in philosophical questions. Without that, he never gathered the tools to understand his given position in society. While in Britain as a student, Patel did not realise that racial and caste oppression have commonalities. Ambedkar, by comparison, grasped that point when he studied in the US and learnt important lessons from the struggles of black people. Ambedkar developed an anti-caste consciousness, Patel never saw beyond an anti-British one. He never understood Ambedkar’s point that independence without caste emancipation would only mean a change from British to Brahmin and Bania masters.

    Patel accepted Gandhi as his guru and never came to think for himself. His mind never stretched beyond the Gandhian framework of feudal democracy, of gramraj and Ramraj. Maybe Patel thought that the Shudras might become rulers in that gramraj, but he was fooled. He did not see the other side of Gandhi – his reliance on Bania industrialists such as the Birlas and Goenkas even while he spoke of a return to village economy. The Bania industrialists were the real power Gandhi was working for, and their power over the country today is part of Gandhi’s legacy.

    Also Read: Reconfiguring India’s Nationalism, One Grand Statue at a Time

    Patel’s apathy reflected the Shudra predicament: denied equal rights yet still positioned somewhere in the middle of the caste order. The Dalits, at the very bottom, are ready to take on the dominant castes that oppress them. The Shudras have been resigned to their limited privileges, even if these come with limited lives. They have never been angry at the Brahmins and Banias above them. Instead, they have let the Brahmins and Banias convince them that the threat comes from the Dalits, and so direct anger at them. Shudras have never realised their own unequal status in the Hindu religion and all the socio-political consequences of it.

    Patel’s lack of intellectual production has become the bottleneck for his history and power, just as it has always been the bottleneck for Shudra history and power. Patel had no socioeconomic theory of his own. He represented the Shudras without a representative ideology. He did not give the Shudras any theory or ideology to show them the way to their empowerment. Shudras are still facing that same ideological hole today. Just a statue of Patel, no matter how big, will never be able to fill it.

    So now Modi, who as I said in my recent essay for The Caravanis a Bania, taking orders from his guru Mohan Bhagwat, the Brahmin sarsanghchalak of the RSS, will unveil a statue of the Shudra Patel. Even here, the BJP and RSS have excluded Shudras from the most important roles. Let us wait and see what this Bania-Brahmin rule brings to the nation and the Shudras, apart from a giant statue.

    Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd is a political theorist and chairman of T-MASS.

  • Nudge to drop Kancha Ilaiah’s books splits DU

    https://m.telegraphindia.com/india/nudge-to-drop-books-splits-du/cid/1672621

    ‘The books are about experiences of Dalits and the backward classes and their knowledge system. Those opposing the books want continuation of the cultural hegemony of the Brahminical social order’

    ByBasant Kumar Mohantyin New Delhi

    • Published 26.10.18, 1:54 AM
    • Updated 26.10.18, 3:39 AM
    Kancha Ilaiah

    Kancha Ilaiah(Agencies)

    A Delhi University panel’s suggestion to drop three books written by a backward class academic on Hinduism from the political science master’s syllabus has split academics into two camps.

    While one claimed the works by Professor Kancha Ilaiah Shepherd were “anti-Hindu”, Ambedkarite scholars described the move as a bid to maintain the “cultural hegemony of the Brahminical social order”.

    The varsity’s standing committee on academic affairs (SCAA) had on Wednesday decided to recommend that the books — Why I am not a Hindu, Post-Hindu India and God as Political Philosopher: Buddha’s Challenge to Brahminism — be dropped from the list of suggested reading on social exclusion as part of the MA course.

    Nachiketa Singh, who is on the standing committee, said some members of the BJP-backed National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF) had found the books “anti-Hindu”.

    “They said the books were not very relevant. But they did not explain in detail,” Singh said.

    The committee, headed by pro-vice-chancellor J.M. Khuranna, accepted the NDTF point.

    NDTF member Geeta Bhatt said the books lacked empirical data and research content. “They carry the author’s perspective. The author has used the fault lines in society to create further division in society,” Bhatt told The Telegraph.

    Professor Veena Kukreja, head of department of political science, said the committee’s recommendations would be “deliberated upon” at the departmental council. “This is not the final decision.”

    If the departmental council approves the suggestion, the matter might be sent to the academic council and later the varsity’s executive council.

    Professor Kesav Kumar, an Ambedkarite scholar who teaches philosophy at the varsity, said Ilaiah’s books distinguished Dalits and the backward classes from the homogenised idea of Hinduism.

    “The books are about experiences of Dalits and the backward classes and their knowledge system. Those opposing the books want continuation of the cultural hegemony of the Brahminical social order,” Kumar said.

    Ilaiah, he said, has demonstrated with evidence how the Dalits and the backward classes were distinct from the others and democratic in terms of culture, food, lifestyle and philosophy.

    “This is Hindutva conspiracy,” he said, referring to the standing committee’s decision.

    Negi said the MA political science course also includes content on Hindu Mahasabha leader V.D. Savarkar and RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar.

    Negi said the MA political science course also includes content on Hindu Mahasabha leader V.D. Savarkar and RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar.(Prem Singh)

    Saroj Negi, an assistant professor of political science, said: “Ilaiah is among a few scholars who tell the real history of society, cutting through layers of dominant ideologies. There is a deep sense of insecurity in coming to terms with the actual conditions of Dalits and bahujans in the country. This a reaction to that.”

    Negi said the MA political science course also includes content on Hindu Mahasabha leader V.D. Savarkar and RSS leader M.S. Golwalkar.

    DU executive council member Rajesh Jha said the university provides space for debate and study on any issue, and dropping books from the syllabus because they happen to be critical about the dominant social order showed narrow consideration. The DU Teachers Association too has protested the standing committee’s recommendations.

    Ilaiah termed the recommendation an “unfortunate anti-academic attempt, which is part of the larger RSS/BJP’s agenda to not to allow plural ideas to be taught to the students in the universities”.

    “The right-wing academicians said there is no empirical data (in the books). While saying so they have not shown the basic academic ethic of reading my books,” he said in a statement.

    He said God as Political Philosopher was his PhD thesis, which is heavily referenced, while Post-Hindu India had a massive database on the production knowledge of village communities and the process of scientific experimentation of various productive communities.

    “Those who do not have any understanding of village production relations hardly understand that book,” Ilaiah said.

    Why I am not a Hindu is taught in many universities in India as well as in the West.

    “The Hindutva forces are opposing the teaching and reading of this book in many countries — including in Columbia University (US). Scholars such as Lise McKean, Linda Hess, Eliza Kent etc., recommend it as an introduction-level reading material on Hinduism. The Hindutva forces opposed but did not succeed in removing it. The same forces are trying once again in DU,” Ilaiah said.

    “The same forces are asking for inclusion of Savarkar’s book Hindutva-Who is a Hindu? and Golwalkar’s book Bunch of Thoughts to be taught in universities. Are these books referenced? Is there empirical data in these books?” he asked.

    “Universities are meant for teaching and debating diversified ideas and concepts. Hundreds of thoughts must clash there. Universities are not theological institutes where only one religious idea is taught.”

    The BJP-backed NDTF had last year opposed a move to include Professor Nandini Sundar’s book, The Burning Forest: India’s War in Bastar, in the MA sociology syllabus.