Comments on HAF's Report - 'Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste' - Aditi Banerjee
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Fwd: Comments on HAF's Report: "Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste" - Aditi
Banerjee
Sunday, December 19, 2010
--- Forwarded message ----
-Subject: Comments on HAF's Report: "Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste"
-From: Aditi Banerjee
-Date: Sun, Dec 19, 2010
Dear Mihir Meghani (HAF):
Attached and pasted below are my personal comments on HAF's report on
caste in the form of an open letter to you. I sincerely hope that you
will work with others in the community to address the serious
concerns raised here and elsewhere.
Regards,
Aditi
- - -
Dear Mihir Meghani (HAF):
I'm sure that by now you've received a barrage of emails re the HAF
report on caste. I won't be redundant by repeating criticisms that
have already been issued, though I am in general agreement with the
serious concerns raised by Rakesh Bahadur, Rajiv Malhotra, Dr. Gautam
Sen, Dr. Kalyanaraman, et al. I did, however, want to express my
personal comments on the report.
*For the reasons given by others in their comments as well as the
reasons set forth below, HAF must immediately withdraw the report and
reissue it only if and when it substantially incorporates the
revisions to be provided by a select group of scholars that address
the community's grave concerns and objections. *There are many ways
to achieve this, and surely we can find a way to structure such a
process that would be satisfactory to you as well as the other
concerned parties. This is absolutely critical and urgent for the
sake of the Hindu community as well as for HAF's sake, or else this
may turn out to be a rift within the community that cannot be mended.
Here are my main objections to the report (to the extent not covered
by the other comments):
*(1) Despite being 160+ pages long, it is not at all clear what HAF's
position is on the issue of caste. There's so much CYA language
going in all directions that the report ends up simultaneously saying
too much and saying nothing at all. *
For example, the report states that it is the position of HAF that
"We believe in equal religious and spiritual rights for all Hindus,
including a priesthood that is open to all Hindus." (p. 56) The
report also refers to a 2006 press release by HAF, where HAF stated:
"The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) welcomed [sic] the a order of
the government of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu allowing all Hindus
with the required training and qualification to become *archakas
*(priests) in temples regardless of caste."
*Does this mean you (as an advocacy group) will openly call for the
government of India to interfere (even more than they are already
interfering) in the internal affairs of temples* to enforce some
quota or other variant of affirmative action for non-Brahmin Hindus?
*If not, are you demanding that temples themselves do this? Are you
arrogating to yourself the authority to tell temples how to conduct
their internal affairs?*
Let's leave India out of it, since you are the Hindu "American"
Foundation. Will you undertake such intervention for American
temples? Also, since the report states ad nauseum that HAF opposes
birth-based discrimination, I presume as a logical matter this
includes gender. Is it HAF's official position that the "priesthood"
(which is an inaccurate term since there is no institutionalized
"priesthood" in Hinduism but rather various sampradayas and
paramparas and mathas that have their own rules) should be open to
women? Will you call for governmental interference to ensure such
measures are taken in individual temples?
*If the answer is yes that you are going to undertake such
interventions, then it is important for us to know this. Please
address where you get the mandate or authority to make such decisions
on behalf of Hindu temples /sampradayas / paramparas / mathas.*
(Citing the 13 statements appended to your report by various swamis
does not count here as a CYA, as it is not clear that any of them had
the opportunity to read your report in full before giving their
statements.)
If the answer is no, that you are not advocating such intervention,
and that the report instead is just intended as a general summary of
HAF's policy position on caste and recommendations for the community
and various Hindu leaders and institutions to consider, then I have
one simple question which is also my next objection:
*(2) What was the point of HAF releasing this report? To the extent
any internal reforms are urged by you to be undertaken, why not make
these recommendations privately and directly to the concerned parties
rather than rebuffing them publicly (other than out of a fear you
wouldn't get brownie points from the US government and other secular
institutions / progressive groups you appear to be cozying up to in
return)?*
*To the extent any position on caste had to be taken by you as an
advocacy group in the public arena, there were many different ways
the same effect could have been achieved without inflicting the
severe collateral damage the report has unleashed.*
You could have simply made a one-paragraph statement like the
following:
"We believe in the rule of law and that under law, each individual
has equal dignity and must be treated equally, and therefore
discrimination should be thoroughly prohibited by law (except to the
extent required to undo past inequities). We believe the internal
laws of India are robust enough to prevent birth-based discrimination
along the lines of caste, and to the extent there are problems
enforcing the laws, that is a matter of law enforcement and we
support full prosecution of the laws in ending caste discrimination.
While, in some respects, this is also a social issue, we applaud the
efforts of those grassroots organizations that are working to
eradicate social divisions and we will continue to support their
efforts. To that effect, we particularly acknowledge the efforts of
[cite groups] to banish the ills of social divisions and
discrimination. We will work together with Hindu groups and acharyas
to work towards the upliftment of the downtrodden."
What does your 170-page report achieve in terms of elaborating a
suitable policy position that the paragraph above does not? Why
would such a paragraph not suffice for the same purpose of addressing
people in debates, etc.? Why waste 100+ pages on copying and pasting
news links and random quotes from the Hindu scriptures to offer some
kind of mea culpa on behalf of Hinduism that is self-serving for your
purposes and to make some unilateral and arrogant demand for the
"rejection" of various Hindu scriptures? How was any of this at all
required for the simple purpose of adopting a clear and appropriate
policy position on caste discrimination? Which brings me to my next
and biggest objection:
*(3) HAF does not have the authority or competence to make statements
about the position of caste in Hinduism; to demand that Hindu
acharyas conform their teachings to HAF's policy position; or to
demand that Hindus actively reject portions of Hindu scriptures and
teachings that do not conform to HAF's whitewashed, politically
correct preferred version of Hinduism.*
Had the report been confined to an argument based on civil rights or
law for more measures to ensure the prevention of discrimination
against lower castes, I would not object to the issuance of the
report. *What I do object to is HAF claiming to definitively
conclude that caste-based discrimination or birth-based hierarchy
(whatever those terms mean) are not inherent to Hinduism and that to
the extent any teachings or scriptures say to the contrary, such
teachings and scriptures must be rejected.*
*In taking this position, HAF has crossed a line and seriously
overstepped its bounds.*
*The report takes this position baldly: "**HAF supports the
reanalysis and subsequent rejection of any and all teachings that
promote caste-based discrimination and birth-based hierarchy. ...
Hindu religious and spiritual leaders must take the lead in ensuring
that those parts of the various scriptures that promote notions of
caste-based discrimination and a birth-based hierarchy are explicitly
denied any authority in the minds of their followers."***
First of all, HAF's discussion of how caste is not inherent to
Hinduism is shallow and grossly oversimplified. Stating that
everything is Brahman and therefore birth-based differences are
irrelevant is a disingenuous answer. Even the most Advaitin of
Advaita Vedantins adhere to the principle that while the physical
world has no fundamental reality it has transactional validity -- or,
as in the movie *Inception*, when in the dream world, the rules of
the dream world are operative and have operating reality -- and that
when operating on the vyavaharika (mundane world) level, one has to
take into account the world one encounters, the reality one sees.
Our rishis saw that people are not "born equal," in the sense that we
come into the world with different gunas (characteristics) and
aptitudes and are born into a variety of circumstances in accordance
with our karma from past births. We see this reality all the time.
We see people born into vastly different circumstances -- some rich,
some poor, some healthy, some gravely ill. What our rishis
recognized is that these differences are not random but rather are a
product of karma accrued through past lives resulting in the current
incarnation. One way of responding to and acknowledging these self-
evident differences was through the social institutions of jati and
varna.
*HAF's position that everything is Brahman and therefore no birth-
based differences exist is extremely shallow and intellectually lazy.
Such a position strikes at the very root of the core principles of
karma and reincarnation that are foundational to Hinduism.*
* * *
Does HAF reject the principles of karm and reincarnation when it
eschews the concept of birth-based differences?
* * *
*Acknowledging such birth-based differences is not tantamount to
calling for discrimination; it is a metaphysical ontology that is
fundamental to the Hindu worldview. One can have this worldview and
still agree that there should be no discrimination as a legal and
social matter. However, this worldview that takes into account
differences at birth cannot be discarded just because it is
inconvenient to HAF. *
If one wants to say that there may be birth-based differences but
that there should not be birth-based discrimination, that is easy
enough to say without having to make all these verbal gymnastics of
saying Hinduism does not believe in the relevance of birth-based
differences -- such a statement can in any case be contradicted in a
number of places, not just in quotes from the scriptures but through
the analysis of various stories from the Puranas which generally show
that people are affected by nature AND nurture and that gunas
inherent from birth do impact the development of an individual
although are not necessarily determinative. *Perhaps such a
worldview does not conform to your Westernized mindset of inherent
equality, etc., but just because you don't like it, just because it
may not be politically correct enough for you, does not mean you can
arrogantly and unilaterally revise Hinduism to say what you wish it
says.*
Presenting a table of scriptures that tabulate what % (based on word
or shloka count) talks about caste (which again is not mappable onto
the scriptures as there is no equivalent word for "caste" in
Sanskrit) is irrelevant and does not prove anything. Hinduism is not
a religion of the book; it is a religion based on traditions
transmitted through sampradayas and paramparas that are in conformity
with the scriptures but not confined to them. Thus, such a verse-
counting analysis is shallow and misleading at best. Nor is it at
all necessary as the ills of caste-based discrimination can be wholly
addressed through legal means and social reform without getting into
these thorny issues.
*I could live with all of the above had HAF not made the brash and
unforgivable and totally unacceptable demand that certain portions of
our scriptures must be rejected by our acharyas and by the Hindu
community. That is a fundamental attack on Hinduism, no less an
attack just because it happens to come from a "Hindu" organization.*
It is true, as HAF states, that the Smritis "by their very nature and
intent, are recognized to change with space and time and do not
necessarily teach Hinduism's eternal spiritual truths." (p. 1).
However, that does not mean one can cherry-pick among the texts to
pick out verses they like and call them the real Hinduism and discard
the others. *Such reinterpretations are the province of spiritual
giants such as Veda Vyasa, Adi Shankara, etc., who have the spiritual
advancement and tapobala to institute such evolutions within
Hinduism. It is not a grant of license for political organizations to
selectively cherry-pick their favorite bits of our scriptures.*
As described above, HAF has called for the rejection of any part of a
scripture that promote notions of birth-based hierarchy. Again, it
is not at all clear what constitutes birth-based hierarchy in HAF's
mind. *Per Vishal's analysis, at least some verses of various Vedas
discuss some notion of caste. Is it HAF's view that such portions of
the Vedas are to be rejected by Hindus? Is HAF asking Hindu acharyas
to reject Vedic shlokas, which are the very fountainhead, the most
sacrosanct of the sacrosanct sources of Hindu dharm?*
HAF cavalierly dismisses and denigrates the Manu Smrti, casually
saying that since no one reads it anyway, it's irrelevant and
therefore can be safely dropped and dismissed. Presumably, HAF's
call to reject scriptures advocating for "birth-based hierarchy"
would entail rejection of the Manu Smriti and other Dharmashastras.
*I will not reject the Manu Smriti and I will not reject any portion
of Hinduism's sacred scriptures, whether Shruti or Smriti, just
because it is not in conformity with HAF's policy position. All of
Hinduism's scriptures are revered and venerated and sacrosanct. They
are not dead texts to be surgically carved up with unfavored parts to
be exorcised at whim. *
* * *
*In its arrogance, HAF has denigrated the faith of a billion people.
It is not necessary to read the Manu Smriti to have faith and
reverence in it. Being a Hindu is not a textual exercise -- it is
shraddha in our traditions, in our scriptures, in our rishis and
forefathers through the ages. Hinduism hasn't survived because of
intellectual analyses. Hinduism has survived because of the faith of
its people, the reverence of the masses for our scriptures, our
rishis, our pantheon of devas and devis. HAF is trampling on the
faith of traditional Hindus by brashly demanding that acharyas reject
portions of the scriptures that HAF dislikes.*
* * *
I will tell you who Manu is to me. He is our first law-giver; he is
our first forefather; he and his descendants are the rulers of our
universe. Every morning, when I sit for puja, I invoke the rishis
and the forefathers, and I feel his presence in my shrine room among
all the other great sages and rishis and divine beings who line the
corridors of the Hindu pantheon. I have bowed before him in remote
temples in the Himalayas, and I have felt his blessings fall upon me.
*Perhaps for HAF the Manu Smriti is just an old book, Manu just an
old dead guy. But for me, and for millions of others, the Manus, the
rishis who gave us our scriptures, and the scriptures themselves, are
living manifestations of the Divine. They are accepted as Divine,
and we have abiding faith in their wisdom, in their divinity, in the
blessings conferred by them. We will not turn our backs on them or on
any part of them.*
*Anyone who attacks Manu attacks Hinduism. We fought against Doniger
for attacking Rama and the Ramayana. I will fight anyone who attacks
Manu or the Manu Smriti and calls for them to be exorcised from
Hinduism. This does not mean that the words of Manu Smriti are to be
applied literally; but it also does not mean that the Manu Smriti is
to be rejected. There is a fine line between the two.*
*HAF has overstepped its bounds grossly, and if it persists in
calling for the rejection of portions of Hindu scriptures, then it
can no longer present itself as a Hindu advocacy group that speaks
for Hindus or presents a Hindu voice.* It is acting no differently
than Doniger and others of her ilk who have also grossly distorted
Hinduism to suit their own proclivities.
Many of us opposed Doniger when she attacked Hinduism; I have no
hesitation in opposing HAF when it attacks the Dharmashastras and the
Hindu dharm by maligning Manu, who was our first law-giver and the
forefather of all humans and all Hindus, and various of our Hindu
scriptures. We must have conviction in our own dharm. I will not
apologize for our Shruti and our Smritis. I will not apologize for
Manu. Let us live by the rule of law, certainly; let us not practice
discrimination. But I will not reject a single word of our
scriptures.
The issue here is bigger than one report about caste. It is about
the soul of HAF. What does HAF stand for? Will it be an
organization that stands for Hinduism and Hindus, or will it make the
compromises it must to advance its own interests and to curry favor
with the political and media mainstream? If HAF is willing to throw
away parts of our scriptures to suit its purposes, what else that is
Hindu will be discarded to suit HAF's convenience? Where does the
line get drawn? This is just one report on caste -- but what will
come next?
*HAF with the issuance of this report has sadly pitted different
factions of the Hindu community against each other. In this, you
have shamefully divided the Hindu community. * Not because anyone
advocates caste-based discrimination but because the report has been
so clumsily put together, so damning in the inconsistent and ill-
defined positions adopted and the reasoning used, so politically
lethal to the interests of Hindus here and abroad, that people are
being forced to take an opposing stand in order to mitigate the
damage to the causes dear to our hearts. *If HAF is willing to work
with the community, the damage can be somewhat rectified. But if HAF
turns its back on the community, then we will have to turn our backs
on you forcefully and explicitly.*
As Rakeshji said in his email, it is hurtful to have to turn against
one's own people. We would all prefer to instead work together. But
dharm is bigger than any individual or any organization. If HAF
persists in distorting Hinduism and calling for the exorcism of
certain portions of Hindu scriptures that you find inconvenient, then
you are standing for adharma, notwithstanding the fact that you all
may be Hindus by birth or self-identification. Dharm is bigger than
any individual or organization.
If, for the sake of dharm, HAF must fall, then so be it.
This is not a passing storm that will subside when tempers cool. Be
assured that if you persist in this way, many of us stand ready to
ensure that your funding is cut and that your ability to inflict such
damage on the Hindu cause in the future is severely curtailed.
Sincerely,
Aditi Banerjee
End of forwarded message from S. Kalyanaraman
Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
Om Shanti
o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.
Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
and/or www.mantra.com/jai
Forwarded message from V.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
It is a bit surprising how HAF missed this. Do they read these
message boards? Misunderstandings and misgivings are fine, but not
such conceptual blunders.
Keep doing what you can to first settle this with HAF and any others
who are still unable to understand, which is a prerequisite to
convincing the school boards and fighting the MMMs.
By the way, to convince the respectable and non-partisan western
intellectuals (yes there are a few) the correct approach should be to
first study Peter F Drucker's books 'New Realities' and
'Postcapitalist Society'. In New Realities, Drucker uses the term
tribalism to explain the jati concept, in fact gives it
respectability. Drucker dismisses all the administrative concepts of
world polity and expects a more responsible leadership emerging, and
tribalism would be one of the most important components.
I am not suggesting Drucker is right, and I will be attacking his
defective arguments in my forthcoming book. But reading him is
important, because that is where opportunities for real leadership
exist; not in the reactive mode fighting the MMMs.
Hint: Drucker uses the sarcastic term 'Secular religion' to reject
western secularism. (Hmm... a bit more advanced idea than RSS/BJP
which think secularism is appropriate as practiced by west). But
Drucker does support churches and their non-profit activities, though
he doesnt actively support their religious mission. He says Salvation
through God died a couple of centuries ago, and the secular religion
was behind Salvation by Society aka socialism. Read his books for
better idea of what I am talking about Available on Amazon for less
than a couple of dollars).
End of forwarded message from V.