'Why I am not a Hindu' - Critical review by M V R Sastry
Dr. Jai Maharaj
Forwarded message from viji
[ Subject: Why I am not a Hindu -- Critical Review by Shri M. V. R. Sastry
[ From: viji
[ Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005
Here is a review of the tragi-comedy book.
Viji
Kancha Ilaiah's 'Why I am Not a Hindu'
A Critical Review by Shri M. V. R. Sastry
*
[Casteism is the major evil afflicting all religious communities in India.
This evil must be fought continuously till it disappears from the Indian
society. Caste-based discrimination against Harijans (Scheduled Castes) and
Vanavasis (tribals) has been mitigated to a great extent in the last few
decades through legislation, social and religious reforms, education,
affirmative actions, industrialization and urbanization. However, much more
needs to be done.
A disturbing trend in the battle against this social evil is the emergence
of a nexus of hate-filled Islamists, Christian missionaries, misguided and
marginal/elitist 'Dalit' leaders, Marxists, Anglophile Indian elites (still
bearing the white man's burdens) and lately, western Indologists/South
Asian Studies' specialists. These disparate groups seem to have only one
thing in common -- a deep hatred for Hindus and Hinduism.
Kancha Ilaiah's book "Why I am not a Hindu" is a manifestation of this
disturbing trend. Ever since the book was published, Ilaiah has become a
celebrity for various Christian missionary, Islamist, Indian Marxist and
other Hinduphobic groups. The title ostensibly seeks to place the book in
the league of texts such as Ibn Warraq's "Why I am not a Muslim" (New York:
Prometheus Books, 1995) or Bertrand Russel's "Why I am not a Christian".
Ilaiah's book however differs from the others in its undisguised hatred for
the targeted community (Hindus), for its crudeness, a general lack of
scholarship and academic rigor, in the abundance of cheap rhetoric, in its
distortion of facts and finally, in the author's total lack of
understanding of the religion it seeks to denigrate. Surprisingly (?), the
book seems to be quite popular in some American and European Universities.
On various Internet discussion lists, scholars such as Lise McKean, Linda
Hess, Eliza Kent etc., routinely recommend it as an introduction level
reading material on Hinduism! While one can understand the inclusion of
critical views (provided they are scholarly) in advanced classes on
individual religions, the inclusion of this hate-filled and negative text
in introductory courses on Hinduism and India by Professors (often of
Indian Marxist extraction) at schools such as the Columbia University, New
York is simply baffling, and also disturbing. One never encounters the
inclusion of Warraq's text in elementary courses on Islam, or of Russel's
classic in an introductory course on Christianity. Even for advanced
courses on Hinduism, these learned Professors should be able to find
something that is more academic, instead of relying on a hate-filled tract.
The exception made in the case of Hinduism by 'scholars' is reminiscent of
trends in Germany in the early 1900s when bashing of Jews was quite
fashionable in Universities. What resulted from this 'scholarly'
hatemongering (combined with other factors) in Hitler's Germany is well
known. The asymmetric, prejudiced treatment reserved for Hinduism needs to
be seen in the context of the discussions on Hinduism in 'scholarly'
Internet forums and in academic 'South Asian Studies'/Indology conferences,
where the quickest way to popularity and promotion of one's career seems to
be merciless, sadistic bludgeoning of Hindus and Hindu dharm. Scholar spin
doctors take a vicarious pleasure in branding various aspects of Hindu
dharm as 'Hindutva', and from there, anything goes. In many cases, the fig-
leaf of 'scholarly' distinction between Hindutva and Hinduism is also
discarded, and Hindu dharm is bashed unabashedly. Even the present book is
titled 'Why I am not a Hindu', but the subtitle says that it is a 'Sudra
critique of Hindutva'! The cause of this scholarly hatemongering against
Hindus by 'scholars' merits a separate study, and cannot be dealt with here
in any detail.
The following review of Ilaiah's claim to fame (or notoriety, as a Hindu
may see it), i.e., the book "Why I am not a Hindu", was initially written
in 4 parts by Shri M.V.R. Sastry, Editor of Andhra Bhoomi, a leading Telugu
newsmagazine. The Telugu text was then translated into English by Shri K.
Satya Deva Prasad, and published in two parts titled 'Ilaiah's howlers -- I
and II' in the ezine 'Bharatiya Pragna' (Sept. 2000, Vol. II, No. 9 & Oct.
2000, Vol. II, No. 10). These articles have long since disappeared from the
Internet. We obtained a copy of the same and are now reproducing them for
wider dissemination. We have slightly modified the style of the
aforementioned English version in order to make it more comprehensible.
Formatting changes have been incorporated merely to make the article look
more pleasing to the eye. No significant change in the substance of the
critique has been made. -- Bharatvani Team, July 8, 2003].
- - - - -
What are the 'five great books' of the millennium? It is a question that
will baffle most of the learned and the intellectual bibliophiles. Why?
Because enormous amounts of literature has been composed in every language,
say in Telugu, over the past thousand years, in various forms like the
short story, novel, poetry, social critique, etc.,. In India, there are
over a dozen such major regional languages. Put together, the number of all
the books produced in English, Hindi and regional languages goes into
thousands. To pick up just five out of that mountain of books is a dizzy
task even to the highly learned and informed.
Yet, such a daunting task was performed in a jiffy by the Delhi based
English daily "The Pioneer". The list of the five great books runs thus:
* "Annihilation of Caste" by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar
* "Gopitha" by Namdev Dassal
* "Untouchable" by Mulkraj Anand
* "Gabbilam (The Bat)" by Joshua
* "Why I am not a Hindu" by Kancha Ilaiah
Of the above, the first four books were authored and published several
years ago, whereas Ilaiah's book is quite a new entrant in the market. It
has been creating its own kind of sensation since its first publication.
The English original has even been translated into Telugu, Kannada and
Tamil.
People are naturally curious as to what this "great" book of the millennium
has to offer to the reader. Apart from being trumpeted as the book of the
millennium, the author seems to be fairly convinced about the greatness of
his book even before it entered the market! His pompous declaration, "My
date of birth may matter little to the country but the date of publication
of this book is very important. I am confident that it is going to
influence the march of history." The declaration reflects the author's
mental immaturity.
The learned author informs us that his magnum opus is prescribed as a text
in many universities in various countries; that historians, social
scientists, political theorists, economists, philosophers and all sorts of
experts are avidly reading it! It is used, according to him, by foreigners
as a source book to know India! It seems one US ambassador reportedly said
that the book presents Indian reality with chilling accuracy. How exciting!
But how factual is the account of India presented by Ilaiah? What kind of
chilling truths are there in it? This is the mute question.
So far, hundreds of books have come out dealing with Dalits, Bahujans,
weaker sections of society, their plight in the society and so on. Of
these, many are penned by people who actually belong to the suffering,
disabled strata of the society. But what puts Ilaiah -- in his own
estimation -- distinctly in that class is his so-called personal
experience. According to his detailed self-description, Ilaiah has the
distinction of not only being born in the backward Kuruma caste in a
backward Telangana village, but of actually rearing sheep while he was
young.
He describes at length how meticulously he learnt the intricacies of his
caste-craft and its lingo; of the esoteric techniques to distinguish
various sheep like the bolli gorre, the pulla gorre, the nalla gorre; of
the diseases that attack the sheep; of the rustic herbal concoctions used
to cure the diseases; of the hot-iron application in case the paltry
medication fails; of the task of mid-wifing the birth of sheep-lings;
tending to the young and grown-up sheep; above all, the expertise to shear
wool from sheep without hurting it. This is the source of the caste-based
knowledge and experience acquired by the millennium author.
In addition to sheep rearing, he acquired a doctorate in academic studies
and became Associate Professor of Political Science at Osmania University,
which knowledge and academic expertise he has used in analyzing his
childhood experiences and in formulating his "Dalit-Bahujan" theories and
perceptions.
The education acquired by Ilaiah would have found its consummation had he
utilized it to analyze, clarify and rectify the ideas he acquired during
his childhood through mere hearsay. It would have also served the cause of
the Dalit-Bahujans so dear to his heart. But that was not to be. What
actually happened in Ilaiah's case is quite different. He never verified
what he saw and heard in his childhood with his immature inchoate
capabilities in later years. He never seemed to consult any worthwhile
source before making venomous remarks about the Brahminism and Brahmin
lifestyle, much less did he observe the present actual situation.
There is not the slightest hint that he did any impartial and methodical
study, however sketchy, about the Brahmins. What all we know of his
knowledge about Brahmins and Brahminism is his so-called discussions with
one or two of his colleagues. And these colleagues are, per his own
admission, feminists well known for their pathological hatred for
everything connected with Hindu tradition, notwithstanding their own
Brahminical birth.
In his childhood, certain things were clear, some were not (as Iliah
himself admits). Yet he never bothered to understand them even in his
"enlightened" years.
Now hear certain truths right from the horse's mouth:
(Note: The following quotations are from the English as well as the Telugu
version quoted in the article by M.V.R. Sastry. Many passages in the Telugu
version do not occur in the English version -- Translator)
"The social structure in which I first became conscious of the world around
me was a Kuruma social structure. My playmates, friends and, of course,
relatives all belonged to the Kuruma caste. Occasionally, the friendship
circle extended to Goudaa and Kaapu boys. We used to meet youngsters of all
castes except those of Baapana (Brahmins) and Komati (Baniya / Vaishya)
castes in pastures, hedges and fields. But we did not have any occasion to
peep into the ways of life and work of the Baapana and Komati youngsters."
(p.4)
There was no effort on the part of Ilaiah even thereafter.
"We hear the Maadiga elders chide their children not learning to make
footwear and beat a drum as unworthy of their caste. but in what manner and
in what words the Baapanas and Komatis show their anger or love towards
their children is unknown to us." (p.6) "It is beyond our guess as to what
chores the Bapana and Komati girls learn at home." (p.8)
In spite of this self-confession about his ignorance about Brahmin and
Vaishya lifestyles, Ilaiah lets his imagination go berserk.
"How do the Baapana and Komati youngsters learn the human and sexual
relationships? Probably when they go to temples and while performing puja,
their boys and girls get an opportunity to mingle. In fact, in our younger
days, we did not know about the social aspect of those families." (p.9)
"We do not know anything about the kind of words used by Baapana, Komati,
Kshatriya children while learning to form the mutual social relationships
within the Hindu fold. I only came to know later in my life that the
Brahmin children are never sent to the field, do not ask them to tend to
cattle, to look after harvest, that they are sent to school while quite
young. I never knew that they hate mud, soil, cow, buffalo, sheep, oxen,
etc." (p.13-14)
He does not know the reality, yet (or therefore?) attributes sinister
motives.
What Ilaiah declares as the hate-targets of upper castes are in fact icons
of worship for the latter. Annam or food or crop is worshipped as
Parabrahman (the highest form of God). The mud that gives food is one of
the five primal elements (prithvi) worshipped. Even the urine and dung of
the cow is considered sacred not to speak of the mother cow itself. The
bull is worshipped as the mount of God Shiva. Yet Ilaiah's wisdom sees hate
all the way!
On his own admission, Ilaiah does not know a thing about the workings of
Bapana and Komati individuals and familial and social relations. He has no
acquaintance with what is happening in those families, their customs,
practices at all. Yet he asserts with authority as to how disgusting the
upper caste lifestyles are! Look at the following quotation where Ilaiah
"unearths" unheard of truths!
"That a father in the traditional Baapana household never physically
touches his children was not known to me until my Baapana mates told me."
(p.14)
This is something unheard of even to the Brahmins. If Ilaiah is right, then
every Brahmin child in every Brahmin household in India should forthwith go
to the police station and book a case under untouchablility crime! And we
are all eager to know as to which planet the Baapana mates of Ilaiah
belong!
Now more of Iliah's wisdom:
"Child rearing is a wife's burden. So thinks the male in the Baapana
household. While the mother looks after the child, does the so-called upper
caste father help in the kitchen? No. The kitchen too is a dirty place
which he should not enter. But the eatables cooked in that kitchen are
godly things! Baapanness never understands the dialectic relation between
impurity and cleanliness." (p.14)
Only Master Ilaiah could unravel the mystery of this dialectics in the past
thousand years!
"I was aghast when I heard that the widow in a Baapana household should
always get her head shaved, wear white robe, should not mingle with people
in general, should not lie on a cot and so on." (p.15) "I was also felt
aghast when I came to know that the Hindu wives burn themselves on the pyre
of their husbands." (p.26)
When did he observe these customs? How often are they practiced now-a-days?
-- These questions never bother Ilaiah. Nor did Ilaiah care to look at the
full flowing hair of Brahmin widows that he comes across in his University
campus or on the road. He never cared to ascertain whether these customs
are still in general practice.
Read on for more of Iliah's pearls of wisdom:
"Baapana children pick up the inhumanness of Hindu religion quite easily.
They are taught that those who love and work with soil are sub-humans; that
those who eat meat are mean and so on. In imparting those venomous ideas,
the Brahmin mother also plays a major role along with the father-teacher
who teaches Veda. So much so that their children are prevented from loving
the soil and the people. Day in and day out, the Brahmin ladies never spare
any effort in moulding their children into beasts in the later years."
(p.17)
"In Hindu households, open discussions about sexual experience are totally
out of place. Mothers can never discuss their sex life with daughters."
(p.17)
"No Brahmin lady could author a book. How come the goddess of learning
herself remain unlettered? It is the direct outcome of the cruelty and the
devilishness of Brahminism." (p.94)
"Vishnu reclining on the serpent is an indication of his inhumanness.
Goddess Laxmi has a full hand in the plots hatched by Vishnu against the
Dalitbahujans. Should any Dalitbahujan individual acquire wealth, or turn
against the caste system, Goddess Laxmi spies on them and informs Vishnu.
Then Vishnu kills them with his Vishnu chakra (disc)." (p.96)
"Siva and Parvati are probably girijans. But Parvati also works against
Dalitbahujans in tandem with Laxmi and Saraswati." (p. 98)
"A large number of Brahmins came along with Sita, Rama and Laxmana to
overthrow and usurp the Adivasi Republics and independent Bahujan kingdoms.
They killed Tataka and usurped her kingdom. They also murdered Sambuka and
occupied his kingdom." (p.107)
What profound Puranic wisdom! Goddess Saraswati is illiterate; Shri Krishna
"stole" Gita; Sita went to forest with the adolescent Rama even before
marriage, occupied the kingdom of Tataka and after marriage she got
Shambuka killed and occupied his kingdom (of a poor hut!). Well to counter
these charges of murder and trespass framed by Ilaiah is beyond the
capability of Gods what to speak of us mortals! They are so senseless.
It is to describe this kind of fantasies that the author of Venugopala
Satakam (one hundred verses on Venugopala) aptly said "Ramanda katalella
memerunganiviya, Kaatama rajuku Karnudode", i.e.,
"We well know the Ramanda (Ramayana mis-spelt) stories -- doesn't Karna
lose to Katama Raja!"
Claiming to show off his knowledge of Ramayana, Ilaiah-like intellectual
declares that the Ramayana is about the story of defeat of Karna at the
hands of Katama Raja. What Karna of the Mahabharata has to do with the 14th
century Nellore king Katama Raja is anybody's guess.
One can condone Ilaiah for his ignorance about the Hindu deities and the
intricacies of Hindu dharm and Hindu classical literature. One can also
condone his hateful, illogical, incoherent rants against Hinduism made
without the least home-work. For many savants a life-time respectful study
of Hindu dharm is not enough to fully grasp its intricacies, what then, to
speak of the half-baked, hate-filled pseudo-scholars like Kancha Ilaiah!
That apart, does this gentleman possess even a paltry acquaintance with the
village deities whom he quixotically pits against the Hindu deities? Let us
examine at some length.
See this tell-tale quotation from his article of April 30, 2000 –
"Is it not ironical that the Hindu mythology constructed a god image like
Krishna who robs butter, steal clothes of women -- that too when they were
bathing. While all other Hindu Gods get constructed as monogamian
Sativratas (One wife worshippers) Krishna was shown to have indulged in
post-modernist sexual orgies."
His grouse is that if other Gods are conceived as having one wife (Here the
word he uses to denote the husband with one wife is 'Sativrata' which is a
travesty of the actual _expression 'Eka Patnivrata'. So much for his
knowledge of Hindu idiom), why should Krishna be depicted as a Casanova?
Shri Krishna might feel happy for Ilaiah siding with him. The Lord of the
three worlds would definitely get enthralled for having found a staunch
advocate in Kanche Ilaiah to argue against the mountainous injustice done
by Hindu devotees in treating him as butter stealer, saree-grabber as also
for all the insults meted out to him at the hands of the wicked Hindu
Brahminical devils!
Now, it is well known that some of the other Hindu Gods also possess more
than one wife. They will certainly dance with ecstasy for having given a
clean chit by Master Iliah who further argues -
"As of now, the Brahmin Pundits are in a terrible mess because of the RSS
men and women shout slogans like "Jai Sriram Laloo Prasad shout back "Jai
Srikrishna" by reframing the image of Krishna as anti-Hindutva god. Not
knowing the possibility of such a situation the nationalist Brahminism
declared Krishna as the author of Gita and it was also declared to be the
text of Hinduism."
That is it! When RSS people shouted "Jai Sriram" Laloo faced them with the
slogan "Jai Srikrishna". This jostled the Brahmin Pundits into a fix. Not
foreseeing such a twist to the events, the nationalist Brahmindom of yore
declared Krishna as the author of Gita. Now that he is found in Laloo's
camp, the Brahmins fell in a trap. So goes Ilaiah's gleeful daydreaming.
Ilaiah's dreaming apart, what is so damaging if Laloo raises slogans in
praise of Shri Krishna, the Jagadguru and Jagannatha? Let him also gets
some religious merit. What loss does Hindutva incur? Why do Hindus need to
fell embarrassed if Laloo Prasad Yadav praises Lord Krishna.
Or shall we feel happy that of all Hindu Gods who faced brickbats from
Ilaiah, at least Krishna is treated as a B.C. and let off the book! On the
contrary, in his Telugu version of 'Why I am not a Hindu', the author does
not take kindly to Krishna. Ilaiah pummels Shri Krishna's image in his own
inimitable simpleton-fashion!
"Who is Krishna? Why did the Brahmins create such a god? It is the same
Krishna who is said to have authored the most Brahminical text the Bhagavad
Gita. At a time when the Sudras had no right to education, how did a Yadava
write the Gita? How did a Yadava writer not provide any social space for
Yadavas themselves, leave alone the other Dalit bahujans? (Page 82 & 83 of
English version; P. 101 of Telugu version)
At a time when the likes of Kancha Ilaiah could not avail the benefit of
modern education without any degree or doctorate, without occupying any
post in any University, how can a Yadava write a Bhagavad Gita? This is a
potent question posed by Master Ilaiah. In both the events -- whether the
answer is 'Yes' or 'No', Krishna, and Hinduism along with him, stand
convicted. To put Ilaiah's litigation in a few words -- if we say that a
Yadava cannot write such a profound work at such an unfavourable time to
the BCs, one should admit that Krishna is not a Yadava. On the other hand,
if Krishna choose to side with Laloo and Ilaiah and declares that he
belongs to Yadava community, then he should also admit that he did not
write the Gita.
But if he says he is not a Yadava, he stands convicted for showing false
caste certificate. Either way, he faces conviction at the hands of our
grand inquisitor, Ilaiah. Here below he spells out the 'real' purpose of
Krishnavatara -
The Brahmins needed to project a person who could rebuild a consent system
to contain the Yadava revolts. The Brahmins created an image of one who was
said to have been born and brought up among the Yadavas themselves. They
worked out the strategy of creating a Krishna who was born in a Kshyatriya
family and brought up in a Yadava family. The young Krishna grows up in a
Yadava culture, but the political Krishna never identifies himself with
Yadava culture. In no single incident did he stand by the Dalit Bahujans.
It did not matter whether his beloved was a Yadava-Radha, or whether the
other Gopikas were Yadavas. All his legal wives were Kshatriya women."
(p.84-85 Eng.) (P.103 Telugu).
And lo, our great researcher unearths the infallible secular truth that
Krishna of Mahabharata mimicked Kautilya of Mauryan times! --
"All the Kautilyan statecraft were exhibited by Krishna in the battle
field" (P.86 Eng; P.103 Tel).
There is no better way to stand Indian history on its head! Any thing is
possible with Iliah's fertile imagination.
He elaborates the same esoteric truth in the article of April 30 in the
following lines:-
"Krishna became acceptable as a hero of Mahabharat because that was a time
which needed a hero who had combined qualities of Kautilya and Vatsayana to
safeguard the interests of Brahminical nationalism."
Thus, according to our ace-academician, a hero combining the spirit of
Kautilya and Vatsayana was needed at the time of Mahabharata. So the
Brahmin nationalists of that period (?) accepted Krishna as hero!
When did Mahabharata take place? To which period did Kautilya and Vatsayana
belong? How on earth could Krishna who predates the other two savants mimic
them? This is the lunatic's history our Professor doles out.
By the way, Iliah also mangles and mutilates Arthasastra to press it in the
service of his Dalit bahujan cause. He pompously declares-
"Brahmins infest in and around the state treasury just as fish live amidst
water. So much so, no one can detect how the fishes swallow water. So also
no one can doubt how much of state money the Brahmins swallow!"
Kautilya must be turning in his grave! What actually he said in the
Arthasastra is this-
"Matsyaa yathanthah salile charantho
jnatum na sakyaah salilam pibanthah
Yuktasthathaa Kaaryavidhon niyuktaa
Jnaatam na sakyaa dhana maada daanaah"
Just as it is not possible to know when the fish which live in water
consume it; so also it is impossible to detect when the state officials
swallow public money.
Thus what Kautilya said about errant state functionaries is straightaway
pasted to Brahmins! That is Ilaiah's sleight of hand!
Now he resorts to number game which is out and out divisive.
"The fight was between the minority Pandavas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and
Vaisyas were always a minority -- they constitute 15% of the population)
and the majority Kauravas. The hundred Kauravas stood against Brahminical
Dharm and represented Dalit bahujans, whereas the five Pandavas represented
the Brahminical minority. In the fight for land (and for the kingdom)
Krishna stands by the minority. The majority were not willing to give up
the land they acquired through sweat and blood.
Finally, Krishna resorts to violence. After the defeat of the majority in
struggle for land, the Gita was used to create a much stronger consent
system to ensure that no serious revolts emerged from the Dalit bahujan
social base.
Whenever such attempts were made, either by Yadavas or by other Dalit
forces, Krishna's Gita was effectively used to manipulate them into
submission." (p.85 & 86 . Eng; p.105 Tel.).
This outlandish interpretation of Mahabharat will certainly find the ardent
readers of the classic dumb-struck! How come we have first cousins of whom
some are Brahmins and some Dalit bahujans? What are the difficulties
undertaken by Kaurava Dalit Bahujans to acquire land? (except fraud and
misrepresentation). Majority reluctant to part with, chances of another
revolt from Dalit bahujan camp (how many times?).What has Gita got to do
with all this? What treachery and breach of trust did Krishna commit?
So far Bharata war is believed by almost all those who knew the epic to be
a feud between two groups of cousins spurred by envy and greed for kingdom.
Now Ilaiah's prophetic perception tells him that it is a feud between OCs
and BCs!
To understand such deep secrets, we lesser mortals should know something of
Iliah's version of Indian history and tradition! Read it in his own words:
"All the Gods and Goddesses are institutionalized, modified and
contextualized in a most brazen anti-Dalit bahujan mode. All Hindu Gods
were opposed to Dalit bahujans. The religion, from its very inception, has
a fascist nature. To suppress the revolts of Dalit bahujans, the
Brahminical forces instigate their Gods." (p.92 Tel; p.72 Eng.)
Pray, tell which God suppressed which revolt? Which god opposed Dalits?
Whence did Hinduism -- which always respected all paths to God -- assumed
fascist nature? What is fascism and how does it relate to Hinduism? What
does Ilaiah mean when he says that Hinduism produces Gods like sheep in a
wolve's clothing? He continues –
"Indra is the chief of Brahminical Gods. Hence he is called Devaatideva"
(p.93 Tel.)
If you cross 'Deva' with 'Atideva', you will get the compound word
'Devaatideva'. But you will find no such mongrel word. In fact, one need
not fear for misspelling and misuse of words. Anything is fair with Ilaiah
if only it is used against Hindus and Hinduism. Probably Ilaiah thought
that 'devaatideva' is the correct form of 'devaadhideva'.
"Probably Indra either raped or made slaves of a number of Dalit bahujan
women. That is why Hindu puranas describe him as lustful person" (p.93
Tel.)
"Brahma is depicted with four and sometimes with eight hands. Brahma the
God of Wisdom always bears arms to yield them on his enemies the Dalit
Bahujans." (p.93 Tel.)
"Is Saraswati, the so called Goddess of learning educated? Irrespective of
her own learning why did Saraswati deny education to Dalit bahujans? …
because of the prohibition imposed by Brahmins on learning by women, even
Saraswati had to remain unlettered."
"The daily menu of Brahmins consists of at least 12 curries".
"While the Brahmins and Baniyas remain lazy gourmets, our parents toil to
produce food stuffs, feed others, but go without food for themselves. While
the Brahmin Baniya youngsters are nincompoop eaters, our young people are
contributing to the country's economic development." (p.28 Tel.)
"They appeared to us like young pythons with soft bodies who are brought up
in the venomous Hindu culture" (p.18)
"The Baniya, with his huge belly, loose-hanging flesh looks very ugly.
Thread on the upper body, ashes on the forehead complete the
appearance.While the Hindu priest earns without fear of sin through free
doles, the Hindu Baniya earns without fear of sin through trade." (p.42
Tel.)
"If a Brahmin invested anything at all, it is only manthra chanting. It is
well known how much a Brahmin fears work. The Brahmin's craving for food
also confirms it." (p. 141 Tel.)
"Because they are mostly idle, the Brahmins could conjure-up sixty four
poses of copulation." (p.46 Tel.)
"When a Brahmin dies with a desire to enjoy eternal happiness in heaven,
his wife has to follow him. She has to commit sati. If she remains alive,
there is chance that she may cohabit with a Sudra or a Chandala. So her
death settles the problem for ever." (p.122 Tel.)
"A Brahmin's death is so very different from that of a Dalit bahujan. The
former's death is related to planetary and stellar motions. No one should
express sadness on his death. The members of his household should never
weep openly. They are allowed to weep in a hushed manner." (p.124 Tel.)
"The Brahmin's life is not communal in life. It is not so in death. It is
eternally alone-Food craving." (p.125 Tel.)
"Probably Brahmins invented the practice of cremating the dead in ancient
times. Because the Hindus massacred thousands of Dalit bahujans who
revolted against Brahmin hegemony. To destroy evidence of that atrocity the
practice of cremation came handy." (p.132 Tel.)
"There is no custom among Dalit bahujans to get photographed. The credit of
preventing them to preserve their past goes to Brahmins. The Brahmins of
old never allowed Dalit bahujans to preserve their past in the form of
pictures." (p.132 Tel.)
Thus Kancha Iliah depends more on heresy regarding the lifestyle, customs,
food habits, social family routines; fills gap rest with his own
imagination without ever bothering to verify what he heard or imagined;
accuses upper castes even for his fellow bahujans not getting photographed
or portrayed; parades his illogical, baseless, senseless picture of society
as the most authentic and authoritative one. Such writing is unbecoming of
a University teacher to say the least.
Ilaiah's ire is not just confined to Hindu upper-caste social customs and
practices. It has also engulfed their deities, sacred beliefs and
sentiments. But how authentic is his critique? Sadly enough, it is crude
and uninformed in the extreme.
Here are some examples:
"The priest makes the newlywed Dalitbahujan couple utter the words
Arthechha, Kamechha, Dharmechha. These are not only unintelligible to the
couple, but inapplicable to their lives as well... Artha, kama, moksha are
entwined with nature's forces for the Dalitbahujans... Kama is not a mere
act to satisfy bodily desire." (p. 35 Tel.)
"When we hear what the Brahmin priest tells about Kaamechha, not only the
Dalitbahujan couple, but even the Brahmin, Baniya couples are taken aback
at first... The Dalitbahujan couple learn a lot about Kaamechha from their
parents, relatives and friends." (p. 44 Tel.)
This discourse by Ilaiah on the four ends of human life displays an abysmal
ignorance coupled with superlative self-righteousness. A bit of
clarification will make things clear.
In a Hindu marriage, the bride's father tells the groom:
"Dharmecha, Arthecha, Kaamecha, twayaisha naati charitavyaa."
It means "in matters of Dharm, Artha or Kaama (desire), you should not be
unjust to her".
In reply, the bridegroom says:
"Naati charaami" (I shall not transgress).
Just as we say Dharm and Artha and Kaama in English, we say Dharmecha,
Arthecha, Kaamecha ('cha' = and) in Sanskrit. Kaamecha means "and kaama"
(or "kaama also"). Whereas Ilaiah twists kaamecha into 'kaamechha' with
emphasis on "chha", which means desire (more precisely, sexual desire).
Thus, kama + cha is understood by Iliah as kama + ichha and then he foams
at the mouth at the wily priest!
Ilaiah twists not only words, but also the images of unsuspecting Hindu
gods! In this, he does his own brand of "rival creation" (prati-srusthi)
and threatens Brahma's position! For instance, on page 94 of the Telugu
version, the picture of a Hindu god with eight hands is given and the
description below reads thus: "Brahma's eight hands with weapons, aimed at
us?"
Anyone with the least cursory knowledge of Hinduism will confirm that the
said picture is of god Vishnu, not of Brahma as asserted by Ilaiah in his
blind rage. But if you dare to differ with our learned professor, you are
under the grave risk of being branded as the fascist, wily, Hindu-Brahmin
agent or stooge or whatever!
What of the mere images of gods? Kancha Ilaiah is inimitable in rewriting
their history and creating new Puranas! The following are some of the
travails of the Hindu gods according to Ilaiah:
"The Hindu gods became heroes by waging wars... in fact, violence is
ingrained in the Hindu religion at every step..."
Such violence is not in the least to be seen in the Dalitbahujan deities of
South India... not one story can be picked in which violence forms the
major theme.
Pochamma, maisamma, maaramma, potharaju, malliah like gods' and goddesses'
private life (including sexual life) is not known at all to the
Dalitbahujans. Such discussion is out of place in the context of those
deities.
"Who is this Pochamma? Why people worship her? Because she protects them
from diseases. Probably she discovered neem leaf to be the cure for small-
pox and thereby saved people. Whether Pochamma has a husband, nobody
knows". (Telugu version)
Even if Ilaiah does not know (on his own admission) about Pochamma, her
husband; or about the private life of Maisamma and Maaramma; or whether
violence is inherent in their nature; it is known to everyone who has some
general knowledge. The lives and deeds of these village deities are being
known for hundreds and thousands of years to the village folks and sung by
them in the form of folk-art forms like oggukatha, jamukulakatha,
gollasuddi and other narrative media.
Let us take a look at the story of Pochamma in brief.
Goddess Parvati had a desire to have a child. She begs Sankara. Sankara
says that all those born in Kali Yuga are their progeny and hence there is
no need for more kids. But Parvati persists saying that one should have
one's own children and there lies the fulfilment of motherly instinct. But
Sankara refuses again. Meanwhile, Laxmi and Saraswati come to Parvati and
offer her their own children for adoption. They have an eye on Parvati's
wealth. But Parvati refuses the offer saying that I myself should give
birth to a child and bring it up in seven mansions with silver swings. She
again approaches Sankara and pesters him for the boon of a child.
Sankara plans to cajole her for the time being by giving her a jasmine
flower and went away to turn the wheel of creation. Parvati ate the flower
and within a few hours suffered labour pains. She sent for Sankara who
learnt the truth and went to Parvati's parents. He chided them for Parvati
becoming pregnant in his absence. Then he went to Parvati, tied her limbs,
made her walk on a caltrap (Palleru Kayalu).
They arrived at the burial ground where a pyre was arranged with eight
carts of sandal wood. Siva made Parvati lie on the pyre and lights it.
Then the foetus in the womb of Parvati speaks out: "Do not weep, my mother.
I am your support." Meanwhile, the pyre burned out but no harm came to
Parvati. Born in Kaadu (cremation ground in Telugu), the child was named
Pochamma.
Sankara then realises, "My wife Parvati is chaste. The child born in
cremation with wood shall thereafter be called Karrapochi." (karra = wood)
The child came of age and desired to be worshipped by one and all.
She demands the same from her father which displeases him. Sankara curses
that Pochamma shall not have sexual enjoyment. Later she was married to a
"forest recluse". Pochamma becomes the presiding deity of small-pox. She
assumes a fearsome appearance when angered. She makes all suffer alike -
near and not so near.
This is the story of Pochamma in short.
This is one of the many stories which are in vogue among the common people.
As already admitted by him, a few like Ilaiah may not know much about the
private (including sexual) life of Pochamma, most of the people who worship
her knew all these facts of her life. Moreover, she does not owe her
popularity to the imaginary role attributed to her by Ilaiah, namely, the
role of a rustic doctor 'who might have invented the cure for small-pox'.
At least the common people who worship her do not do so because of what the
likes of Ilaiah imagine.
Hindu deities and Dalit deities do not turn antagonistic overnight because
the great Ilaiah said so. The origins of Dalit deities are inseparably
linked to the Hindu, Brahmanic, Puranic deities however much Ilaiah may
deny it. As shown in Pochamma's story, none other than the prime Hindu
deities Siva and Parvati are the parents of the so-called Dalitbahujan
deity Pochamma. Not only to her, they are the parents of Ellamma and
Poleramma too.
Ellamma's story goes like this:
Once Trimurtis (Brahma, Vishnu and Siva) started on a world tour.
Parvati wanted to accompany them. So she was taken into cart. After
covering some distance, sweat appeared on Siva's face. A drop of sweat fell
on the earth in a termite mound. It was swallowed by a snake in the mound
and gave birth to a girl child. Unaware of this, the gods went on their
way.
On return, Parvati heard the girl's cry and wanted to lift her up. On
Parvati's request, Siva dropped a lock of hair to help the child crawl up.
But the mischievous child started swinging in the mound with Siva's hair.
Siva felt pain and told her to come up. She refused asking that she needs
water, goat, rice, fruits and many other articles for food.
To satisfy her, Vishnu assumed the form of Pothuraju, Siva as Baindla,
Brahma as Kinnara, Parvati, Laxmi, Saraswati, Arundhati, Savitri as
"muttaiduvas" went to the mound and requested the girl to "Ellu Amma" (Come
out, mother). She came out and thereafter called as Ellamma.
Should we consider Ellamma as a Hindu deity because of her origin and close
relations to Hindu deities or shall we consider as antagonistic to Hindus
simply because an Ilaiah said so? Here is the story of Ellamma -
Ellamma is also called Maahuramma, Akkali Devi, Renuka Devi, Ekaveera.
Parvati and Parameswara marry her in her twelfth year to Rishi Jamadagni.
Parasurama was born to Jamadagni and Ellamma. Once Ellamma or Renuka was
immersed in watching the passing Gandharvas and displays her temptation.
Jamadagni orders Parasurama to cut down his mother. Knowing the plight of
Renuka or Ellamma, a maadiga woman embraces and weeps. Parasurama cuts both
of them. Pleased by Parasurama's obedience, Jamadagni grants a boon.
Parasurama asks for his mother's life.
Jamadagni bids his son to join the head to the trunk and sprinkle sacred
water. In his hurry, Parasurama joins the wrong trunk to his mother's head.
Both the dead ladies come alive but one with a Brahmin trunk and maadiga
head as Ellamma, the other with a Brahmin head and maadiga trunk as
Maaramma.
Poleramma is another village deity born out of Siva's sweat. She takes
revenge on Prataparudra in the most fearsome way by spreading epidemics,
killing people and so on. Another deity called Ankamma is considered to be
the mother of Trimurtis. The origin and lives of almost all these deities
is replete with violence, bloodshed, spitefulness, etc.
Yet Ilaiah remarks about them:
"One who encourages killing is not a god. He is a devil. Pochamma,
Kattamaisamma did not become deities by killing someone. They became
deities because they protected us from disease and hunger." (p. 27 Tel.)
"We do not find one story in Dalitbahujan tradition realting to violence."
"That the Dalitbahujan deities are the symbols of production oriented
cultures has never occured to the Communists. They did not know that
Kattamaisamma invented construction of tanks; Pochamma invented herbal
medicines for all diseases. They did not and do not intend to know." (p. 79
Tel.)
Beside exerting to divide the present day society and pit Dalitbahujans
against other members of the society, Ilaiah has tried hard to divide gods
into Dalit and Hindu classes with no connections whatsoever. He has also
attempted to present Hindu gods as bearing arms to massacre Dalits and
Sudras even though there is not an iota of evidence to that support. He has
tried to paint 'Dalit deities' as peaceful, non-aggressive benefactors in
the form of tank builders and herbal healers. By the way, he might as well
recommend a professorship to Pothuraju!
"I do not know, did not try to know, do not intend to know," says Ilaiah.
Had he the slightest sense to get informed before abusing those whom he
hates, he would not have considered the paltry information he acquired from
his fellow sheep-rearing friends of childhood as encyclopaedic. He would
have tried to inform himself better through those who really know about the
deities of Dalitbahujans. If Brahma, Siva, Vishnu. Parvati, etc. are
Brahminical gods, then are not Ankamma, the mother of Trimurtis, Ellamma
and Poleramma born to Siva and Parvati equally Brahminical? Do not all
Hindus worship these latter class of deities with equal reverence? Had he
been better informed, questions like this might have occured to Iliah and
removed the thick veil of ignorant prejudice blinding him. Had not Ilaiah
laboured under chronic Brahmin-phobia, he would have opened his eyes and
ears to those Christian missionaries whom he likes very much.
Had he tried, he would have obtained the copy of a book named "The Village
Gods of South India".
Even the most cursory perusal of that book might certainly have convinced
him that it was not written to purposely mislead the great Ilaiah because
it was published in 1916, at least three to four decades prior to his
birth. He might have also realised that it was authored by one Reverend
Henry Whitehead with formidable credentials -- a Bishop of Madras who
roamed all over South India with the sole aim of converting Hindus to
Christianity by making an in-depth study of Hindu village deities,
festivals and fairs, sacrifices and other customs. The book might have
offered a mine of authentic information as it comes not from a Hindu agent.
The book, on its 119th page describes an interesting account of the origin
of the custom to sacrifice he-buffalo to the village deities.
The story goes like this:
In ancient days, the story runs, there lived a karnam, i.e. a village
accountant, in a village to the east. He was blind, and had only one
daughter. A Pariah, well versed in the Vedas, came to the village in the
disguise of a Brahmin. The elders of the village were deceived and induced
the blind karnam to give his daughter to him in marriage, that he might
succeed to the office of karnam in due time. The marriage was celebrated by
Brahmin rites, and the karnam's daughter bore sons and daughters to her
Pariah husband, without any suspicion arising in her mind as to his origin.
After a time a native of the Pariah's own village came to the place where
they were living, and recognised the Pariah disguised as a Brahmin. Seeing
however that he was a man of influence he said nothing to the villagers,
but went and told the Pariah's old mother. As he was her only son, the old
woman set out in search of him, and came to the village where he lived, and
sat down by the well used by the caste people. The Pariah happened to go
there, and recognised his mother; so he took her to a barber, had her head
shaved, passed her off as a Brahmin widow and brought her to his house,
telling his wife that she was his mother and was dumb. He took the
precaution strictly to enjoin her not to speak, lest her speech should
betray them. One day the wife ordered a meal with a dish made of wheat
flour baked with sugar and made into long strings. During the meal, the
mother, forgetting the injunction of silence, asked her son what the
preparation was, saying it looked like the entrails of an animal! The wife
overheard the remark, and her suspicions were aroused by the fact that her
mother-in l-law could speak, when her husband had said that she was dumb,
and did not know a common Brahmin dish like the one prepared by her; so she
watched their conduct, and felt convinced that they belonged to a low
caste, and were not Brahmins at all. Accordingly, she sent their children
to school one day, when her husband was away from home, managed to get rid
of the mother-in-law for a few hours, and then set fire to the house and
burnt herself alive. By virtue of her great merit in thus expiating the sin
she had involuntarily committed, she reappeared in the middle of the
village in a divine form, declared that the villagers had done her great
wrong by marrying her to a Pariah, and that she would ruin them all.
The villagers implored mercy in abject terror. She was appeased by their
entreaties, consented to remain in the village as their village goddess,
and commanded the villagers to worship her. When she was about to be burnt
in the fire, she vowed that her husband should be brought before her and
beheaded, that one of his legs should be cut off and put in his mouth, the
fat of his stomach put on his head, and a lighted lamp placed on the top of
it. The villagers seized the husband, stripped him naked, took him in
procession round the village, beheaded him in her presence, and treated his
leg and fat of his stomach as directed. Then her children came on the
scene, violently abused the villagers and the village officers, and told
them that they were the cause of their mother's death. The deity looked at
her children with favour, and declared that they should always be her
children, and that without them no worship should be offered to her. The
Asaadis claimed to be descendents of these children, and during the
festival exercise the hereditary privilege of abusing the villagers and
village officers in their songs. After being beheaded, the husband has born
again as a buffalo, and for this reason a buffalo is offered in sacrifice
to vuramma, the village goddess.
What lessons can be drawn from the above story may be left to Ilaiah's
discrimination. He being born and brought up in India says: "What have
Dalitbahujan gods to do with Hindus? Do Hindus worship our gods?"
To this, the person (Rev. Whitehead) born in a foreign land comes here,
undertakes thorough research and declares:
"For the most part, the same people in town and village worship the village
deities and the Brahmin gods. In the vast majority of the districts, the
worship of the village deities and the worship of Siva and Vishnu go on
side by side."
To the jaundiced eyes of Ilaiah, the mere presence of weapons in the hands
of Brahma, Vishnu and other Hindu gods is a proof enough of the violent
blood-thirsty nature of those gods. He conjured up shivering visions of
those weapons being aimed straight at the Dalitbahujans!
Killngs of hundreds of animals to propitiate the so-called Dalitbahujan
deities and the blood-curdling rituals do not perturb our angel of peace
and non-violence!
Look at this graphic account of a typical sacrifice to the village deity
described by Rev. Whitehead:
"The worship of the village deities contains much that is physically
repulsive. The details of a buffalo sacrifice are horrid to read about, and
still worse to witness, and the sight of a pujari parading the streets with
the entrails of a lamb round his neck and its liver in his mouth would be
disgusting and doubtless, there is much drunkenness and immorality
connected with the village festivals..." (Village Gods of South India, p.
141)
And again:
"It is the kind of offering that is made to the local policeman or a
tyrannical government official to secure his favour... The village deity is
nothing more than a petty local spirit, tyrannising over or protecting a
small hamlet. Occasionally renting her spite or her ill-temper on a handful
of poor villagers... Taking the system as a whole... we can only condemn it
from a moral and religious point of view as a debasing superstition." (p.
154-155)
What the foreign missionary Henry Whitehead condemned as the practices in
no uncertain terms some eighty years ago, our great intellectual Kancha
Ilaiah goes into raptures while describing "to these (village) deities
yellow-rice, curd-rice are not the offerings. In a year of plenty, a well-
fed buffalo is offered in sacrifice. Its blood is sprinkled around the
harvesting fields... once in five years, a buffalo is killed in the temple
of Polimeramma and cooked rice mixed with the blood is sprinkled on all
houses in the village. What we eat is also eaten by our gods and goddesses.
Our gods eat chicken, meat, fish and drink toddy."
Per Ilaiah's scale of culture, offering curd-rice and yellow-rice to the
god is sinful. But beheading buffalos and goats is meritorious. This is
what the learning of Ilaiah taught him.
"In the history of this country, the date of birth of this book is more
important than my date of birth," boasts Kancha Iliah in his preface to the
Telugu version.
Maybe. But he does not know his own date of birth!
"While the author was tending to cattle, teacher Rajalingam took him to
school and there registered the date of birth as October 5, 1952 on the
basis of the crude guess of his grandma" -- so declares the author towards
the end.
He does not know his date of birth, but takes for granted its momentous
significance to this ancient society! This is but a small sample of his
inscrutable ways! He rarely reveals the details about his life experiences,
but whatever he reveals has no rhyme or reason!
Take for instance his personal details given above. The only person that
has anything to do with the great authority, is his teacher Rajalingam
apart from the unnamed grandma. If what Ilaiah emphatically and frequently
says about the hatred possessed by teachers towards Dalitbahujans is true,
then how come a teacher takes special interest in taking a Dalitbahujan boy
like young Iliah to school? But Iliah never desists from showering abuses
on teachers at the slightest provocation. According to Iliah, the teachers
of his time used to say that they were teaching the Dalits reluctantly and
ill-treated them as useless Sudras!
He pompously assumes that he belongs to the first generation Dalits who
acquired modern learning. He declares,
"We, who are the first to hold the slate and chalk in the Dalitbahujan
history, plunged headlong into school studies by leaving our daily labour."
(p. 21 Tel)
Then...
"From the meagre learning we had in our village single teacher school until
obtaining a M.A. degree from University, the myriad experiences enriched
us... had not the Dalitbahujan mind possessed the supple adaptability, the
first generation Dalitbahujans like us would not have..." (p. 83 Tel.)
In reality, by the time Ilaiah took birth, five years passed after we had
got our Independence. By that time, a number of persons who belong to
Ilaiah's Dalitbahujans were educated for some generations and occupied
important positions in various fields. Poets like Joshua, politicians like
Damodaram Sanjivaiah have already illumined public life as beacons of
Dalits. Even in Ilaiah's own Telangana, the oppressed peoples like Dalits,
barbers, washermen, farm-labourers have acquired awareness through adult
schools, revolted and led an armed struggle against the tyrannical Nizam
several years before Ilaiah's birth. Yet, Iliah claims that he belongs to
the first generation of educated Dalits!
He declares with all the confidence and enthusiasm of a neophyte:
"Hinduism with its Brahmin hold prohibited education to us, change in times
and the spread of modern education, and also due to the reservation system
that came due to Dr. Ambedkar's efforts. Until then there was no educated
class in these castes." (p. 20)
Such wise men like Ilaiah should know better before making an accusation or
levelling a charge. Prior to the formation of Andhra Pradesh State, the
Telugu speaking area was a part of the Madras presidency. The indigenous
education system existing at that time was vividly described in books like
1. The Beautiful Tree -- Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth
Century, 2. One Teacher, One School, etc. These books detail the
information gathered by British officials submitted to the British
government of that time. It reveals that under indigenous system, education
was not the monopoly of any one caste. It was within the reach of all
castes and classes of people. Both teachers and students came from all
castes. For instance in the Madras Presidency, of the total number of
students, 22% were Brahmins, 10.4% Vaishyas and the rest were Sudras and
other castes. Even though the number of Dalit students was much less
compared to their population, their number was not as low as it is made out
by the likes of Ilaiah. There were both students and teachers from the
Scheduled Castes. These facts show that there was some education among the
Dalits much before Iliah. But he never cares for such truths.
Ilaiah does not respect Ambedkar's findings on the origins of Sudras and
Brahmin-Dalit relations, yet he quotes Ambedkar when it suits him.
"We do not come across a social thinker like Ambedkar for the past three
thousand years... who forms the backbone for the Dalit struggle against the
age-old caste system."
Yet our professor does not care to know what Dr. Ambedkar spoke or wrote
about caste system and the slavery of low castes.
Had Iliah the least knowledge about what Ambedkar's writings on these
issues say, he would not have asserted that "Rama was an Aryan invader and
Ravana, a Dravid saviour" (p. 11); "the Aryans massacred the Adidravidas
(Ilaiah's Dalitbahujans) in thousands" (p. 93); that South India was
occupied by Aryans after the death of Ravana; that South India until then
was casteless until the Brahmins from the North established it there; that
Brahminism was imposed from above in South India, i.e., an external
imposition (p. 107-108).
Ilaiah may as well know what the Dalit savant Dr. Ambedkar said before
mutilating history to suit his quixotic formulations. In his book, "Who
were Sudras", Dr Ambedkar disproved the Aryan Invasion Theory with sound
logic. After explaining at length that the caste system has nothing to do
with the Aryan invasion, he comes to the conclusion that:
1. The Vedas do not know any such race as the Aryan race.
2. There is no evidence in the Vedas of an invasion of India by the Aryan
race and its having conquered the Dasas and Dasyus supposed to be the
natives of India." (Dr. Ambedkar, "Writings & Speeches", Vol. 7, pages 74-
85)
Not only that "caste existed much before Manu. It is incorrect to say that
Brahmins created caste. The Brahmins might have committed many sins but to
impose caste system on the whole non-Brahmin people is beyond their
capacity." (Dr. B.R. Ambedkar in "Caste in India")
Ambedkar declares: "Brahmins and the untouchables belong to the same race.
From this it follows that if the Brahmins are Aryans, the untouchables are
also Aryans. If the Brahmins are Dravidians, the untouchables are also
Dravidians." (Dr. Ambedkar, "Writings & Speeches", Vol. 7, pages 302-303)
Are not the Aryan-Dravidian, Brahmin-Dalit equations conjured up by Ilaiah
shattered by his mentor's words? Not only that Dr. Ambedkar has the
following firm convictions as to who Sudras are:
1. "The Sudras were one of the Aryan communities of the Solar race.
2. There was a time when the Aryan society recognised only three varnas,
namely, Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas.
3. The Sudras did not form a separate varna. They ranked as part of the
Kshatriya varna in the Indo-Aryan society.
4. There was a continuous feud between the Sudra kings and the Brahmins in
which the Brahmins were subjected to many tyrannies and indignities.
5. As a result of the hatred towards the Sudras generated by their
tyrannies and oppressions, the Brahmins refused to perform the Upanayana of
the Sudras.
6. Owing to the denial of Upanayana, the Sudras who were Kshatriyas became
socially degraded, fell below the rank of the Vaishyas and thus came to
form the fourth varna." (Dr. Ambedkar, "Writings & Speeches", Vol. 7, pages
11-12)
According to Ambedkar, the reason for downfall of the Sudras in the social
scale is the oppression and humiliation they inflicted on the Brahmins. How
come Ilaiah, an ardent follower of Ambedkar says "three thousand years
Brahminism tortured us more than Hitler's gas chambers"?
Again Ilaiah pontificates, "I am writing this book only for those who do
not shut out their minds but read it with open minds... those who refuse to
face new questions and learn new answers will perish." This pontification
applies more to Ilaiah himself. If he has anything of an open mind left in
him, there is one book which Iliah should read.
The book is recently released and the author is an American. The subject of
the book is also Hindu Dharm.
While Kancha Iliah poses the question "Why I am not a Hindu", David Frawley
answers through the book "How I became a Hindu" in 200 pages.
David Frawley is more or less of the same age as Iliah. If Iliah's parents
are born in a sheep-rearing caste, David's parents belonged to a dairy
farm. His father is Irish and mother German. Like Ilaiah's family, David's
family is not much educated either. Ilaiah realised the greatness of the
Christian Church only after being educated. But David was born into a pure
Catholic-Christian family. His uncle worked as a Christian evangelist in
South America. David's mother desired that her son should follow the same
vocation.
Thus, a middle class, West American (Wisconsin) born Christian, David
Frawley was not satisfied with the Christianity he imbibed since childhood.
He started on an intellectual journey studying Communism, Taoism, Zen,
Buddhism, Islam and many other schools of thought, posed questions, sought
answers and finally came to the conclusion that only Hinduism withstood all
tests of logic and is capable of showing the way to the highest spiritual
fulfillment of man. He disproves the current intellectual fad that the
Vedas are crude appeals to natural forces by aborigines and only
Upanishadic teachings are the essence of Hinduism.
He rediscovered that the profundity of Hinduism stems from the Vedas only.
He learnt Sanskrit, toiled to study Vedas. For twenty years, he propagated
the sublimities and modernity of the Vedic tradition in America and India.
Much applauded and respected for his knowledge of Hindu Dharm, David
finally adopted it and was given the name Vamadeva Shastri.
One who was destined to be a Christian preacher, not only left that
religion and adopted the Hindu religion which the so-called 'secularists'
considered as the cess-pool of superstition and polytheism, full of
inequality and ignorance. The circumstances that led and the influences
that paved the way for this transformation were picturesquely dealt with in
the book "How I became a Hindu". The book is brought out by the Voice of
India Publications, 2/18, Ansari Road, New Delhi -- 110002. Priced at a
modest Rs. 120/-, the book is an eye opener to the half-baked critiques of
Hinduism.
Frawley explains his journey towards Hinduism as follows (p. 11-12 and 81-
83) -- Born in America, traveled widely, studied most religions, David
Frawley comes to the conclusion that Hindu Dharm is the path-finder to the
world and answer to all questions. Having concluded so, he joined the
Hindu-fold and proudly declares that he is a Hindu. But Kancha Ilaiah, born
in India, brought up in Hindu civilisation and occupying a professorship in
an Indian university declares, "We hate the Hindu religion, we hate
Brahminism still more." He raves that the Hindu religion destroys all that
is lofty and sober in man... 'Charity and kindness are not to be found
anywhere in Brahminism. Brahmins and Baniyas never even thought of the good
of other people'. But, according to him, to split open the belly of a cow
is not himsa. Again, 'all those born in the Brahmin caste should be
prohibited from the vocation of authorship for at least one hundred years.
It is a historical necessity to augur a time when Brahmins in hundreds are
made to sew footwear and sweep the roads. Hindu temples should be captured,
the Brahmins be driven away and their gold, silver and land should be
confiscated.' He is infected with Brahmin hatred and is exerting every
nerve to spread the infection. Thus the likes of Iliah mistake their own
intellectual delirium for a commitment to some cause. Only Hindu dharm can
save him.
End of forwarded message from viji
Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti
Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org
The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.
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.
hari...@indero.com
* Why I Am Not a Hindu
Professor Ramendra's bold manifesto in which he explains why he
rejects the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, varnashram
dharma, moksha, karmavada, and avatarvada. In place of idol
worship and ancient taboo, Ramendra advocates a humanistic
secularism based on liberty, equality, and the inalienable rights
of each individual.
"I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's Why I Am Not a Christian.
On the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's
Why I Am a Hindu. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me
to write this essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born
in a Hindu family."
GWhyte
<hari...@indero.com> wrote in message
news:4314433c$0$280$4d5e...@reader.city-net.com...
ravi...@yahoo.com
hindutva.. or whatever of it.. they should mind their own business. Dr.
Babasaheb Ambedkar had the same problem. He wanted to improve the
society where needed, but he had less powers, & if he left hindutva, he
would lose any right to speak or do or interfere in the affairs of
hindutva, as he would be an outsider. Whatever he would say or do would
be that of an interested party --not allowed. Plus, that he said " if i
become muslim or christian ,,, i would become anti-national...i adore
my ancestors and my great history ..and i want to be associated with
it, i believe all my indian hindu greatness, islaam and christianity
are anti-national, anti-democracy and science, freedom of thoughts etc,
and anti-society. I cannot go for it, so he chose a middle way. Taht
was of taking Sikhism or Bauddhatva, both in the Hindu fold, but
without the caste system. Not severing ties with the ancestry, his
ancestral nationality, & history & society and pride and values. In
that he would remain a hindu.. inside hindu fold and faithful to this
nation and its ethos and society, but outside the caste system. Inside
and outside, both at the same time, also letting him the right to work
for hindutva, his society-- and do and speak for hindutva,. He did not
turn traitor. He said he would become enemy of nation if he became
muslim or christi. He tried to work as a defender of hindutva and this
nation. He said." if i wish, i could greatly harm this country (by
becoming muslim with his lakhs of followers.. crores...),,, but i
cannot harm my nation. I cannot become enemy of my nation... "
(inverted commaas here are to give the meaning ,,, they are not exact
words,,refer .. his books,, one of them is "thoughts on pakistan"...
other books also. He even said that not one muslim should be allowed to
stay here-- that each and every muslim be sent to to pakistan!!!). He
has served greatly this hindu society and nation with her all pride,
history, and values. Ambedkar did not become a handle of the enemies of
Hindusthaan.. hindu nation.
And what does this writer, Mr. M.V.R. Shaastri doing here? Does he
think he has any right left to speak and do anything about hindutva
after he has left our society and whatever? He has no right nor need
nor invitation interfere in the affairs of hindutva , or even its name
,, let him create his own society, or go and assimilate with the
enemies... muslims , christiz.. commies,,, etc,..Amabedkar is
mis-understood by these fools.. misguided people,,,
Next everyone loves and hates things.. has anyobne seen any book on ,,
:" why I hate my wife".. my friends, my old age, and why I am mnot
them, why I am hate and am not my creditors, my country, my penis, (and
hating them) also why I am not my servant, my neighbor, my wife's
dear males, my parents, my sons and dauhters,,, my old bad body... my
creditors, my education, my government, my neighboring countries,
islaam, christianity, communism, distaatorship, , bankers, businessmen,
customers, suppliers, ... microsoft, whores of my city, or village,
.... etc? huh...these buggers are "paid"towwrite these things... or
they are just trhe weaker sectioins.,.. morally and
psychically...etc... huh... why i am not a hindu? i wish he write...
"why i am not a muslim or christian.. or commie,,,etc... " and then he
will come to know... what being a hindu is... these fools... but.. let
them roam.. give them a long rope... to hang thwmselves... we will not
pull the rope,,, why should we tale it on ourselves? ,, let them hang
themselves... the moment they falter,,, tehy will be hanged and
starngled .. automatically... by themselves... we need not do
anything,.,, except just hold the rope...let them run.. let us see how
far they run.. there is no escape in this world... hahah .,,, there is
no escape.. these buggers think they can escape? hahah,,, they going to
come to us,, back.. nobody else.. any religion or counry is gonna feed
them and keep them.. wothout ulteriror motives... heheh.. they use
these buggers.. heheh,,,these buggers are given false elated notions a
so-called freedom and money etc... like the pakis do to the muslim
invaders ( wrongly called aatankvaadiz... terrorists...).in kashmir
etc...huh... thats the issue ,,, to convert all away from
hindu-hiundusthaan so that outsiders can rule and bleed india...
simple... why i am not a hindu... i challenge the guy to write,,, why i
am not a muslim or christian or commie... or why i am not powerful
enough to take control of problems which led me to write this book... i
think ,, the writer will of course progress to this... he is human
after all.. that is what we play on... let him cometo... we have
patience... and it is none of our businesses as to what he is or what
he is not... forget this guy... he 9is a fool.. ora man in the middle
of the road... this is temporary state... and he may be thinks aloud..
writing it out.. his diary,, of what he understands,, what frame of
references he got to decipher things in life... things change,, brains
cannot be same all time.. sure he will not think tomorrow what he
thinks today... may be at the most he will do is to defend his ego...
in future if anyone dcriticises his book... as even he will say.." oh
,, that was silly of me " this is what humans do... as humans do...and
we are not islaamists or christiz nor commies--negationists who start
killing, burning, defaming, torturing, converting forcibly, raping...
let the writer become a muslim,, christi, commie,,, let him,, he will
know... end of the earth is home... he knows,,, hindutva is freedom..
he has a right to rant..shout.. heheh we are least worried,, hahah...
yes again the same thing.. if he is no more a hindu... thenm he has no
business to talk about things that are hindu.. he should mind his own
business,, of wherever or wichinever he is in...
ravi...@yahoo.com
christianity, or comaradeship, or wherever you wish .. outside the
hindu fold,,, you have no reason to bash hindu vedas etc,,, as you have
left it... so you look now only ahead,,, u got no right to wprry bout
our hindutva... better forget it and save you time,, Mr. Shastri, and
nobody is much harping on it .. as to why you left hindutva... etc...
do something more creative.. buddy.. we are not islaamists nor christiz
nor commies,, we give you freedomn.. fly.. as you like,,that is
hindutva. You can speak in this mnanner ansd write because we are ( not
you) hindus...try writing about islaam ,, like rushdie or that bengali
lady .. whats her name? tasleemaa... naasreen... try dear... you are a
coward,,, you think u can bash us? because we do not send jihaadiz to
kill you? thats what shows your bastardness,,,stalin eliminated 6
crores out of 18... mao did what .. u know... christiz killed 10 crore
in americas... and 2 crores in australias-newzealand etc... and 3
crores in world war.. and in malabar, konkan, assam.. what? try cursing
them...u coward Mr. M.V.R.Shastri....you traitor,,,
ravi...@yahoo.com
ravi...@yahoo.com
course somewhat instigating.. irking,,, i had not read your this part
of the letter... and i tht you were mad,,,i appreciate yor reading
gandhi and russel.. etc... so again ,, now i am led to write ths
apology ... but i still hold to the views... of mine ,, that i wrote
there... you can ponder over it... bandhoo... c u ... i just created a
group ...on google... Hindu-aarya... am not knowing what andd how to do
of it,,,trying to evolve it... c u sir.. i get these alerts on the
word..HINDU... as i have opted on google ... daily... c u ...have a
nice time ,,
sorry for the bad words,,, as i