Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

His Master's Voice: Sid Harth

13 views

Skip to first unread message

navanavonmilita

unread,

Apr 12, 2010, 7:54:00 AM4/12/10

His Master's Voice: Sid Harth

His Master's Voice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parent company EMI
Founded 1908

Status defunct (fate: trade mark sold to HMV Group)

Genre Various
Country of origin United Kingdom

His Master's Voice is a famous trademark in the music business, and
for many years was the name of a large record label. The name was
coined in 1899 as the title of a painting of the dog Nipper listening
to a wind-up gramophone. In the photograph on which the painting was
based, the dog was listening to a cylinder phonograph.

Origins

The famous trademark image comes from a painting by English artist
Francis Barraud, A.R.A. and titled His Master's Voice. The original
title of the painting was "His Late Master's Voice" (and this phrase
appears on many of the original RCA Victor labels), but the concept
was considered too depressing for most of the public's tastes, and
certainly for an image used as a means to put the consumer in the mood
to buy. It was acquired from the artist in 1899 by the newly-formed
Gramophone Company. According to contemporary Gramophone Company
publicity material, the dog, a fox terrier called Nipper, had
originally belonged to Barraud's brother Mark. When Mark Barraud died,
Francis inherited Nipper, along with a cylinder phonograph and a
number of recordings of Mark's voice. Francis noted the peculiar
interest that the dog took in the recorded voice of his late master
emanating from the trumpet, and conceived the idea of committing the
scene to canvas.

In early 1899, Francis Barraud applied for copyright of the original
painting using the descriptive working title Dog looking at and
listening to a Phonograph. He was unable to sell the work to any
cylinder phonograph company, but The Gramophone Company purchased it
later that year, under the condition that Barraud modify it to show
one of their disc machines. The image was first used on the company's
publicity material in 1900, and additional copies were subsequently
commissioned from the artist for various corporate purposes.[1]

Later, at the request of the gramophone's inventor Emile Berliner, the
American rights to the picture became owned by the Victor Talking
Machine Company. Victor used the image more aggressively than its UK
partner, and from 1902 on all Victor records had a simplified drawing
of the dog and gramophone from Barraud's painting on their label.
Magazine advertisements urged record buyers to "Look for the dog".

The Gramophone Company becomes "His Master's Voice"

A colored vinyl single released by HMVIn Commonwealth countries, the
Gramophone Company did not use this design on its record labels until
1909. The following year the Gramophone Company replaced the Recording
Angel trademark in the upper half of the record labels by the famous
picture painted by Frances Barraud, commonly referred to as Nipper or
The Dog.

The company was not formally called "HMV" or His Master's Voice, but
was identified by that term because of its use of the trademark.
Records issued by the Company before February 1908 were generally
referred to as "G&Ts", while those after that date are usually called
"HMV" records.

This image continued to be used as a trademark by Victor in the USA,
Canada and Latin America, and then by Victor's successor RCA. In
Commonwealth countries (except Canada) it was used by subsidiaries of
the Gramophone Company, which ultimately became part of EMI.

The trademark's ownership is divided among different companies in
different countries, reducing its value in the globalised music
market. The name HMV is used by a chain of music shops owned by HMV
Group plc, mainly in the UK, Ireland, Canada, Singapore, Australia,
Hong Kong, and Japan.

In 1921 the Gramophone Company opened the first HMV shop in London. In
1929 RCA bought Victor, and with it a major shareholding in the
Gramophone Company which Victor had owned since 1920.

In 1931 RCA was instrumental in the creation of EMI, which continued
to own the "His Master's Voice" name and image in the UK. In 1935 RCA
sold its stake in EMI but continued to own Victor and the rights to
His Master's Voice in the Americas.[citation needed] HMV continued to
distribute RCA recordings until RCA severed its ties with EMI in 1957
which led EMI to buy Capitol Records.

World War II fragmented the ownership of the name still further, as
RCA Victor's Japanese subsidiary The Victor Company of Japan (JVC)
became independent, and today they still use the "Victor" brand and
Nipper in Japan only.[2] Nipper continued to appear on RCA Victor
records in America while EMI owned the His Master's Voice label in the
UK until the 1980s, and the HMV shops until 1998.

In 1967, EMI converted the HMV label into an exclusive classical music
label and dropped its POP series of popular music. HMV's POP series
artists' roster was moved to Columbia Graphophone and licenced
American POP record deals to Stateside Records.

The globalised market for CDs pushed EMI into abandoning the HMV label
in favour of "EMI Classics", a name they could use worldwide; however,
it was revived in 1988 for Morrissey recordings. The HMV trademark is
now owned by the retail chain in the UK. The formal trademark transfer
from EMI took place in 2003.[3]

Meanwhile, RCA went into a financial decline. The dog and gramophone
image, along with the RCA name, is now licensed by RCA Records and RCA
Victor owner Sony Music Entertainment from Thomson SA, which operates
RCA's consumer electronics business (still promoted by Nipper the dog)
that it bought from General Electric in 1986, after GE bought RCA.[4]
The image of "His Master's Voice" now exists in the United States as a
trademark only on radios and radios combined with phonographs, a
trademark owned by Thomson subsidiary RCA Trademark Management SA.

With that exception, the "His Master's Voice" dog and gramophone image
is in the public domain in the USA, its United States trademark
registrations having expired in 1989 (for sound recordings and
phonograph cabinets), 1992 (television sets, television-radio
combination sets), and 1994 (sound recording and reproducing machines,
needles, and records).

Additional notes

The "His Master's Voice" logo was used around the world, and the motto
became well-known in different languages. In Europe these include "La
Voix de son Maître" (France), "La Voz de su Amo" (Spain), "A Voz do
seu Dono" (Portugal), "La Voce del Padrone" (Italy), "Die Stimme
seines Herrn" (Germany), "Husbondens Röst" (Sweden) and "Sahibinin
Sesi" (Turkey).

On 1 April, 2007, HMV Group announced that Gromit, the animated dog of
Wallace and Gromit fame, would stand in for Nipper for a three-month
period, promoting children's DVDs in its UK stores.[5]

The 1958 LP album "Elvis' Golden Records" shows pictures of various
RCA 45s with Nipper on their labels. On the British version, these
images were blacked out, for obvious copyright reasons. This editing
took place with many other RCA releases in England.

The movie Superman Returns (2006) contains a scene early on set in
Kansas, in which a "His Master's Voice" radio is clearly shown. His
Master's Voice radios have never been sold in the USA, due to RCA
holding the "Nipper" copyright. The movie was made in Australia, and
the nearest "prop" was obviously used.

Homage is played to the iconic dog and gramophone image in the 1999
feature film Wild Wild West where in a dog resembling Nipper runs to
the side of a recently departed character and looks into an ear horn.
The film however, is set in 1869, 30 years before Barraud created his
work.

HMV Group PLC

Main article: HMV Group http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMV_Group

An HMV store on Oxford StreetThe name HMV is still used by the chain
of entertainment shops founded by Gramophone Company in the UK and
Canada, which continued to expand internationally through the 1990s.

In 1998 HMV Media was created as a separate company leaving EMI with a
43% stake. The firm bought the Waterstone's chain of bookshops and
merged them with Dillons.

In 2002 it floated on the London Stock Exchange as HMV Group plc,
leaving EMI with only a token holding. HMV shops in Australia, Ireland
and the UK also use Nipper. HMV has applied for trademark status in
order to use Nipper at HMV stores in Canada.[6]

As of August 2006, there are over 400 HMV stores worldwide, plus the
website hmv.com,[7] which is operated by HMV Guernsey.

navanavonmilita

unread,

Apr 12, 2010, 10:18:21 AM4/12/10

His Master's Voice: Sid Harth

Most Popular

Glossary

Articles Categories

Why does Dharma say so?

Namaskar (10)
Arti (8)
Worship of Goddess (3)
Articles of ritualistic worship (6)
Family religious traditions and social customs (3)
Dharma Basics
Introductory Articles (9)
Spiritual Research (19)

Hindu Gods

Ganapati (8)
Lord Krushna (8)
Lord Vishnu (6)
Lord Rama (3)
Lord Hanuman (2)
Lord Datta (3)
Lord Shiva (7)

Hinduism

Hindu Dharma (12)
Hindu's 16 Sanskars (10)
4 Varna System (6)
Achardharma (Practicing Dharma) (12)
Supreme God, God, Incarnations and Deities (16)
Protection of nation and Dharmajagruti (2)

Ayurveda

Diet (3)
Supreme beauty (3)
Blood and Liver (2)

Festivals

Rakshabandhan (2)
Shravani (2)
Krishnajayanti (2)
Sri Ganesh Chaturthi (5)
Rushipanchami (1)
Vowed Religious Observance (5)

Rituals

Shraddha (13)
Spiritual Practice (Sadhana)
Introduction to Spirituality (6)
Namsankirtanyoga (11)
Gurukrupayoga (15)
Spirituality (9)
Disciple (8)
Spiritual Emotion (Bhav) (8)
Hathayoga (7)

Hindi Articles

Sadhana (1)
Tyohar (8)
Vidhi (11)
Devata (3)

http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/knowledge/index.php?topart

http://www.hindujagruti.org/index.php

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinayak_Damodar_Savarkar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rajguru

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantya_Tope

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangal_Pande

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parashurama

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_Azad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anant_Laxman_Kanhere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashik

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Aurobindo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1915_Singapore_Mutiny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghadar_party

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Har_Dayal

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sohan_Singh_Bhakna

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_S_Khankhoje

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandit_Kanshi_Ram

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraknath_Das

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhai_Bhagwan_Singh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kartar_Singh_Sarabha

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Ganesh_Pingle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghadar_Conspiracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_revolutionary_underground

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_Bengal_(1905)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathuram_Godse

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lakshmibai

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/thug

[edit] In 1664 the Maratha leader Shivaji sacked and looted Surat.
In 1664 the Maratha leader Shivaji sacked and looted Surat. When
Shivaji arrived at Surat he demanded tribute from the Mughal commander
and the small army stationed with him for port security. The tribute
was refused and so after Shivaji took the city, he put it to sack.
Surat was under sack for nearly 3 weeks, in which the army looted all
possible wealth from Mughal & Portuguese trading centers. All this
loot was successfully transported to Maharashtra before the Mughal
Empire at Delhi was alerted. This wealth later was used for
development & strengthening the Maratha Empire.

The only exception to the looting was the British factory, a fortified
warehouse-counting house-hostel, which was successfully defended by
Sir George Oxenden. But the prosperity of the factory at Surat
received a fatal blow when Bombay was ceded to the British as part of
the dowry for Catherine of Braganza's wedding to Charles II in 1662.
Shortly afterwards in 1668 another factory was established in
Bombay(Mumbai) by the British East India Company. From that date Surat
began to decline with the rise of British interests in Bombay, and the
city was sacked again by Shivaji in 1670. By 1689 the seat of
presidency was moved to Bombay by the British East India Company. The
Surat population had reached an estimated 800,000 in its heyday, but
by the middle of the 19th century the number had fallen to 80,000.
Surat was again taken by the British in 1759, and the conquerors
assumed the undivided government of the city in 1800. Since the
introduction of British rule, the city and the surrounding district
remained comparatively tranquil; and even during the Revolt of
1857(also known as the first struggle for India's independence) peace
was not disturbed, owing in great measure to the loyalty of the
leading Muslim families to the British and to the largely mercantile
interests of the local population.

vkvora 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Vkvora2001

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3ALooting

History of massacres, illegal occupation, destruction of Hyderabad by
India
February 28, 2010
tags: (Hyderabad Historical Society, ardar Patel, Aurangabad, Bajrang
Dall, China, Communist Party of India, destruction of Hyderabad by
India, Forman Christian College, Hindu Extremists, Hindu Terrorism,
History of massacres, human rights crimes in india, human rights
violations, Hyderabad, illegal occupation, India, Indira Gandhi, Indo-
Middle East Cultural Studies, Jawahar lal Nehru, Jinnah’s politics,
Kashmir, Lahore, London, Margrit Pernau, massacre of Muslims, Military
Intelligence, Muslim community in Hyderabad, Omar Khalid, Operation
Polo, Osmania University, Patrimonalism, police, Professor Wilfred
Cantwell Smith, Punjab Regiment, Razakar atrocities, Shiv Sena,
Srinagar, state of Hyderabad, The Gita, The Quran, Union Home
Minister, V.P. Menon, Vallabhbhai Patel, Washingtonby
ThePeopleOfPakistanRate This

Moin Ansari:
A revealing account surfaces of happenings in Hyderabad state in the
wake of the Indian Army’s ‘Police Action’ there in 1948.

“AT times one has to close his (sic) eyes in national interest.” The
“senior police officer” who made this confession to The Indian
Express, in Srinagar on February 17, provided a truthful explanation
for the compromises which sections of the medi a and academia tend to
make in the “national interest”.

The officer was speaking of the volte-face his chief, A.K. Suri, had
performed with regard to the disclosure of the arrest by the police of
a man from Military Intelligence, in plain clothes, for firing
wantonly on a group of youngsters in Maisuma , in Srinagar. But, let
alone matters of immediate occurrence or issues of current interest
such as Kashmir and the border dispute with China, even on historical
events one finds a practice of economising with truth.

That K.M. Munshi, India’s Agent-General in the erstwhile state of
Hyderabad, did not mention in his memoirs The End of an Era (1957) the
massacre of Muslims in many areas in the wake of the Indian Army’s
“Police Action” in September 1948 – itself a compromise with the truth
– was but to be expected in view of his outlook. Not so its omission
in standard works by writers who aspired to scholarly values and who
were not communal; only “patriotic” in a perverted but familiar
manner. A rare exception was the book by Communist Party of India
(Marxist) leader P. Sundarayya, Telengana People’s Struggle and its
Lessons (1972). He wrote of the “untold miseries” that were inflicted
on “the ordinary Muslim people” (pages 88-89).

Suppression of records is not only unethical but futile. More often
than not, the foreign scholar will unearth it from archives in London
or Washington, or in India itself. A German scholar has done just
that. Margrit Pernau records in her book The Pa ssing of Patrimonalism
that “while the occupation by the Indian army had been quick and had
caused only relatively few casualties, the following communal carnage
was all the more terrible. The Razakars had sown wind and reaped not
only storm but a hu rricane which in a few days cost the lives of one-
tenth to one-fifth of the male Muslim population primarily in the
countryside and provincial towers”. (page 336, emphasis added,
throughout. See review on page 75).

Professor Wilfred Cantwell Smith, a scholar on Islam and a critic of
Jinnah’s politics, wrote a seminal article in the periodical The
Middle East Journal in 1950 (Volume 4) titled Hyderabad: A Muslim
Tragedy. He was Lecturer in Islamic Hist ory at the University of the
Punjab and at the Forman Christian College, Lahore (1940-1946) and
visited Hyderabad in 1949. In a critique of the Nizam’s policies and
of Qasim Razvi, the leader of the Razakars, he also fairly described
the aftermath.

“Off the battlefield, however, the Muslim community fell before a
massive and brutal blow, the devastation of which left those who did
survive reeling in bewildered fear. Thousands upon thousands were
slaughtered; many hundreds of thousands uprooted . The instrument of
their disaster was, of course, vengeance. Particularly in the
Marathwara section of the state, and to a less but still terrible
extent in most other areas, the story of the days after ‘police
action’ is grim.

“The only careful report on what happened in this period was made a
few months later by investigators – including a Congress Muslim and a
sympathetic and admired Hindu – commissioned by the Indian Government
to study the situation. The report was submitted but has not been
published; presumably it makes unpleasant reading. It is widely held
that the figure mentioned therein for the number of Muslims massacred
is 50,000. Other estimates by responsible observers run as high as
200,000, and by some of the Muslims themselves still higher. The
lowest estimates, even those offered privately by apologists of the
military government, came to at least ten times the number of murders
with which previously the Razakars were officially accused… In some
areas, all the men were stood in a line, and done to death. Of the
total Muslim community in Hyderabad, it would seem that somewhere
between one in ten and one in five of the adult males may have lost
their lives in those few days. In additio n to killing, there was
widespread rape, arson, looting, and expropriation. A very large
percentage of the entire Muslim population of the Districts fled in
destitution to the capital or other cities; and later efforts to
repatriate them met with scant s uccess.” He was referring to a report
by Pandit Sundarlal (1886-1980) and Kazi Muhammad Abdul
Ghaffar(1889-1956).

In 1988, Omar Khalidi, a devoted chronicler of Hyderabad, published
what he claimed were extracts from their Report in his compilation of
essays, Hyderabad: After the Fall (Hyderabad Historical Society;
Wichita, Kansas; U.S.). His introduction to the extracts, though
informative, is marred by inaccuracies and intemperate language. He
had relied, somewhat uncritically, on an interview with Yunus Salim
who claimed inaccurately, that he was a member of the team led by
Sundarlal which toured Hyderaba d in November-December 1948. A 32-year-
old State attorney then, he was dismissed from the post for having
helped the team.

Yunus Salim was a Deputy Minister for Railways in Indira Gandhi’s
government (1969) and a Governor of Bihar in 1991. Garbled versions of
the Report appeared in Pakistan. Khalidi writes: “In addition to the
copy in the Union Home Ministry, Srinivas Lahoti , a Communist Party
of India leader in Hyderabad, owned a copy. In an interview in
February 1988 he claims to have deposited it with the National
Archives of India, New Delhi upon his party’s instruction. The present
writer obtained fragments of t he Report (which is partly in English
and partly in Urdu) from owners who wish to remain anonymous. The
portion in English is being reproduced without any alteration. The
Urdu portion is translated into English.”

Khalidi was misled. The entire document is in English and the
“fragments” he reproduces should have put him on notice that it is not
safe to rely on them. The brief Introductory portion is intrinsically
unreliable. The rest is a village-wise and d istrict-wise account.

Union Home Minister Vallabhbhai Patel reacted angrily to the Report in
a letter to Abdul Ghaffar dated January 4, 1949:

“I notice that in your report you mentioned that you were asked by the
Government of India to proceed to Hyderabad State on a goodwill
mission. At least I am not aware of any such mission having been
entrusted to you by the Government of India. As far as I know, you
wanted to go there and it was arranged that you should go there at
Government expense. There could have been no question of Government of
India sending any goodwill mission to Hyderabad State.

“I notice that your report is and your activities were, restricted to
making inquiries about what happened during and after the police
action. There is nothing in it about the extent and consequences of
Razakar atrocities. Probably that was out of the terms of reference
which you had set for yourselves. At the same time, you have covered
in your reports matters which could by no stretch of imagination, have
formed the purview of your enquiry. I should also like to say at once
that the detailed in quiries which have been made by the local
administration over a fairly long period as opposed to the roving
enquiries which you have made during such a short period show that
your estimate and your appreciation of the position lack balance and
proportion . Finally you have rushed into a sphere which might have
been more appropriately left to be covered by experienced
statesmanship and administrative ability.”

The assertions were simply untrue and the aspersions were unworthy of
Sardar Patel. In those days nobody could have toured the State without
official approval. That the team went there admittedly “at government
expense” revealed a lot. And, as we know “e xperienced statesmanship
and administrative ability” do not guarantee impartiality in
inquiries. The report censured the Razakars and was balanced.

Kazi Abdul Ghaffar was a bitter critic of Razvi’s Majlis-e Ittihadul-
Muslimin and was trusted by the State Congress. He was editor of
Firangi Mahal’s Khilafatist paper Akhuwat (1919-20) and of Payam
(1934-46) and was respected as a scholar- journalist. He visited
Hyderabad in October along with Padmaja Naidu and alerted Maulana Abul
Kalam Azad to the happenings there. Pandit Sundarlal was vice-
president of the United Provinces Congress (1931-36) and as president
of the All-India Peace Counc il (1959-63), urged rapprochement with
China against the majority view of the times.

His magnum opus, The Gita and The Quran, is a neglected work. An
English translation was published in 1957 by the Institute of Indo-
Middle East Cultural Studies, Hyderabad. Neglected also is Volume 8
(second series) of Selected Works of Jawahar lal Nehru (1990) (pages
102-113).

In a Note to Sardar Patel’s Ministry of States, dated November 14,
1948, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, while denying Pakistan’s
propaganda, wrote: “I have recently had talks with Kazi Abdul Ghaffar
and Miss Padmaja Naidu, who have just returned from H yderabad. They
are both reliable observers… The impression I have gathered from these
talks is that while our army is generally believed to have functioned
well and to have protected the people, there is little doubt that a
very large number of outbreaks took place in the small towns and
villages resulting in the massacre of possibly some thousands of
Muslims by Hindus, as well as a great deal of looting, etc… This
information is contrary to what I had believed and I should like it to
be verified through our military and civil authorities in Hyderabad.
We must know the truth, or else we shall be caught saying things which
are proved to be false later.” It is unlikely that those reports did
not reach the ears of the Minister concerned, Vallabhbhai Patel.

Even men like Dr. Zakir Hussain’s brother, the academic Dr. Yusuf
Husain Khan, and Dr. M. A. Ansari’s nephew, M.A. Ansari, a High Court
Judge, were “removed from their post”, Nehru complained. He added:
“One of the persistent charges made is that we inte nd to kill what is
called Muslim culture. Hyderabad is known all over the Middle East as
a city of Muslim culture. The Osmania University is well known and
even better known is the publication department and the translation
bureau of the State.”

With a letter to V.P. Menon, the secretary of the Ministry, dated
November 26, 1946, Nehru enclosed a note on the situation in Hyderabad
and remarked: “If possible, some good non-officials should go there to
help the administration and to try to produce a better frame of mind
both among the Muslims and the Hindus.”

The editor to the volume recorded: “A four-man goodwill mission,
consisting of Kazi Abdul Ghaffar, Pandit Sundarlal, Moulana Abdulla
Misri and Furrukh Sayer Shakeri, was sent to Hyderabad at the personal
instance of Nehru to study existing conditions and to help in the
establishments of communal harmony. After a brief visit to Bidar and
Osmanabad districts by Major-General Chaudhury, Pandit Sundarlal,
Akbar Ali Khan and Fareed Mirza, two teams, one consisting of Pandit
Sundarlal, Kazi Abdul Ghaffar, Mul la Abdul Basith and Mohammed Yunus
Saleem had toured Bidar, Osmanabad and Nanded while the other
consisting of Moulana Abdulla Misri, Furrukh Sayer and Fareed Mirza
visited Aurangabad, Bhir and Gulbarga. They took stock of the
information collected and s ent a report to Vallabhbhai Patel.”

All of which shows Sardar Patel’s repudiation of the officially
sponsored team to be less than honest. Nehru’s note cited “additional
reports from Hyderabad” about the killing and looting. It said: “If
there is even a fraction of truth in these reports, then the situation
in Hyderabad was much worse than we had been led to believe. It is
important that the exact facts should be placed before us. We want no
optimistic account and no suppression of unsavoury episodes. That
would lead us to form incorrect judgments… A sense of fear seems to
pervade the Muslims of Hyderabad. That is perhaps natural after all
that has happened. But unless we can lessen this fear, the situation
will become worse.”

Dr. Charan Sandhilya, Director of Pandit Sundarlal Institute of Asian
Studies at Ghaziabad obtained for this writer a copy of the full text
of the Sundarlal Report from the Nehru Memorial Museum and Library,
New Delhi (excerpts on facing page). It record s official sponsorship
and reflects their objectivity in denouncing the Razakars’ murderous
attacks on Hindus, in praising officials where praise was due, yet
never flinching from telling the terrible truth about the massacre of
Muslims. This is a truth which hardly any Indian scholar has deigned
to admit this day.

The Sundarlal Report is of more than historical importance; it is of
current relevance, for the massacres, coupled with the national
indifference to them, have left scars in the minds of Muslims in the
State, Hyderabad city in particular. And some Muslim communal parties
have not been slow to exploit these scars.
HYDERABAD:Of a massacre untold A. G. NOORANI

Hyderabad State had its own army, as well as its own airline,
telecommunication system, railway network, postal system, currency and
radio broadcasting service, with a GDP larger than that of Belgium.

It was in this context that the Nizam, then the richest man in the
world, desired to retain independence for his state. The Indians
however, were wary of having an independent – and possibly hostile in
the heart of its territory, and were determined to assimilate
Hyderabad into the Indian Union, in the same manner as the other five
hundred and sixty five royal states that had already acceded.

The Nizam allowed Qasim Razvi, a close advisor, and leader of the
radical Majlis-e-Ittehadul Muslimeen (MIM) Party, to set up an
voluntary militia of Muslims called the ‘Razakars’. The Razakars – who
numbered up to 200,000 at the height of the conflict

The Nizam of Hyderabad initially approached the British government
with a request to take on the status of an independent constitutional
monarchy under the British Commonwealth of Nations. This request was
however rejected.

When Indian Home Minister Sardar Vallabhai Patel requested the
Hyderabad Government to sign the instrument of accession, the Nizam
refused and instead declared Hyderabad as an independent nation on 15
August 1947, the same day that India became independent. Alarmed at
the idea of an independent Hyderabad in the heart of Indian territory,
Sardar Patel approached the governor general of India, Lord
Mountbatten who advised him to resolve the issue without the use of
force.

Accordingly, the Indian government offered Hyderabad a ‘Standstill
Agreement’ which made an assurance that the status quo would be
maintained and no military action would be taken.

Hyderabadi Military Preparations
The Nizam of Hyderabad had a large army with a tradition of hiring
mercenary forces. These included Arabs, Rohillas, North Indian Muslims
and Pathans. The State Army consisted of three armoured regiments, a
horse cavalry regiment, 11 infantry battalions and artillery. These
were supplemented by irregular units with horse cavalry, four infantry
battalions (termed as the Saraf-e-khas, paigah, Arab and Refugee) and
a garrison battalion – all forming a total of 22,000 men. This army
was commanded by Major General El Edroos, an Arab.[4] 55 per cent of
the Hyderabadi army was composed of Muslims, with 1,268 Muslims in a
total of 1,765 officers as of 1941.[5]

In addition to these, there were about 200,000 irregular militia
called the Razakars under the command of civilian leader Qasim Razvi.
A quarter of these were armed with modern small firearms, while the
rest were predominantly armed with muzzle-loaders and swords.[4]

It is reported that the Nizam received arms supplies from Pakistan and
from the Portuguese administration based in Goa. In addition,
additional arms supplies were received via airdrops from an Australian
arms trader Sidney Cotton.

Breakdown of Negotiations
As the Indian government received information that Hyderabad was
arming itself and was preparing to ally with Pakistan in any future
war with India, Sardar Patel described the idea of an independent
Hyderabad as an ulcer in the heart of India – which had to removed
surgically. In response, Hyderabad’s prime minister Laik Ali stated
“India thinks that if Pakistan attacks her, Hyderabad will stab her in
the back. I am not so sure we would not.” Sardar Patel responded later
by stating “If you threaten us with violence, swords will be met with
swords”.[5]

In Hyderabad, militia leader Qasim Razwi told a crowd of Razakars,
“Death with the sword in hand, is always preferable to extinction by a
mere stroke of the pen.”. Razwi was later described by Indian
government officials as “The Nizam’s Frankenstein Monster”. In
response to reports that India was planning to invade Hyderabad Razwi
stated, “If India attacks us I can and will create a turmoil
throughout India. We will perish but India will perish also.” The
magazine “Time” pointed out that if India invaded Hyderabad, the
Razakars would massacre Hindus, which would lead to retaliatory
massacres of Muslims across India.[6]

Skirmish at Kodar
On September 6 an Indian police post near Chillakallu village came
under heavy fire from Razakar units. The Indian Army command sent a
squadron of The Poona Horse led by Abhey Singh and a company of 2/5
Gurkha Rifles to investigate who were also fired upon by the Razakars.
The tanks of the Poona Horse then chased the Razakars to Kodar, in
Hyderabad territory. Here they were opposed by the armoured cars of 1
Hyderabad Lancers. In a brief action the Poona Horse destroyed one
armoured car and forced the surrender of the state garrison at Kodar.

Indian Military Preparations
On receiving directions from the government to seize and annex
Hyderabad, the Indian army came up with the Goddard Plan (laid out by
Lt. Gen E.N. Goddard, the C-in-C of the Southern Command). The plan
envisaged two main thrusts – from Vijayawada in the East and Solapur
in the West – while smaller units pinned down the Hyderabadi army
along the border. Overall command was placed in the hands of Lt. Gen.
Rajendrasinghji, DSO.

The attack from Solapur was led by Major General J.N. Chaudhari and
was composed of four task forces:

Strike Force comprising a mix of fast moving infantry, cavalry and
light artillery,
Smash Force consisting of predominantly armoured units and artillery,
Kill Force composed of infantry and engineering units
Vir Force which comprised infantry, anti-tank and engineering units.
The attack from Vijaywada was led by Major General A.A. Rudra and
comprised the 2/5 Gurkha Rifles, one squadron of the 17th (Poona)
Horse, and a troop from the 19th Field Battery along with engineering
and ancillary units. In addition, four infantry battalions were to
neutralize and protect lines of communication. Two squadrons of Hawker
Tempest aircraft were prepared for air support from the Pune base.

The date for the attack was fixed as 13 September, even though General
Sir Roy Bucher, the Indian chief of staff, had objected on grounds
that Hyderabad would be an additional front for the Indian army after
Kashmir.

Commencement of Hostilities
Day 1, September 13
The first battle was fought at Naldurg Fort on the Solapur
Secundarabad Highway between a defending force of the 1st Hyderabad
Infantry and the attacking force of the 7th Brigade. Using speed and
surprise, the 7th Brigade managed to secure a vital bridge on the Bori
river intact, following which an assault was made on the Hyderabadi
positions at Naldurg by the 2nd Sikh Infantry. The bridge and road
secured, an armoured column of the 1st Armoured Brigade – part of the
Smash force – moved into the town of Jalkot, 8 km from Naldurg, at
0900 hours, paving the way for the Strike Force units under Lt. Col
Ram Singh Commandant of 9 DOGRA (a motorised battalion) to pass
through. This armoured column reached the town of Umarge, 61 km inside
Hyderabad by 1515 hours, where it quickly overpowered resistance from
Razakar units defending the town. Meanwhile, another column consisting
of a squadron of 3rd Cavalry, a troop from 18th King Edward’s Own
Cavalry, a troop from 9 Para Field Regiment, 10 Field Company
Engineers, 3/2 Punjab Regiment, 2/1 Gurkha Rifles, 1 Mewar Infantry,
and ancillary units attacked the town of Tuljapur, about 34 km north-
west of Naldurg. They reached Tuljapur at dawn, where they encountered
resistance from a unit of the 1st Hyderabad Infantry and about 200
Razakars who fought for two hours before surrendering. Further advance
towards the town of Lohara was stalled as the river had swollen. The
first day on the Western front ended with the Indians inflicting heavy
casualties on the Hyderabadis and capturing large tracts of territory.
Amongst the captured defenders was a British mercenary who had been
tasked with blowing up the bridge near Naldurg.

In the East, forces led by Lt. Gen A.A. Rudra met with fierce
resistance from two armoured units of Humber armoured cars and
Staghound armoured cars, but managed to reach the town of Kodar by
0830 hours. Pressing on, the force reached Mungala by the afternoon.

There were further incidents in Hospet – where the 1st Mysore
assaulted and secured a sugar factory from units of Razakars and
Pathans – and at Tungabhadra – where the 5/5 Gurkha attacked and
secured a vital bridge from the Hyderabadi army.

Day 2, September 14
The force that had camped at Umarge proceeded to the town of Rajasur,
48 km east. As aerial reconnaissance had shown well entrenched ambush
positions set up along the way, the air strikes from squadrons of
Tempests were called in. These air strikes effectively cleared the
route and allowed the land forces to reach and secure Rajasur by the
afternoon.

The Assault force from the East was meanwhile slowed down by an anti-
tank ditch and later came under heavy fire from hillside positions of
the 1st Lancers and 5th Infantry 6 km from Surriapet. The positions
were assaulted by the 2/5 Gurkha – veterans of the Burma Campaign –
and was neutralised with the Hyderabadis taking severe casualties.

At the same time, the 3/11 Gurkha Rifles and a squadron of 8th Cavalry
attacked Osmanabad and took the town after heavy street combat with
the Razakars who determinedly resisted the Indians

A force under the command of Maj. Gen. D.S. Brar was tasked with
capturing the city of Aurangabad. The city was attacked by six columns
of infantry and cavalry, resulting in the civil administration
emerging in the afternoon and offering a surrender to the Indians.

There were further incidents in Jalna where 3 Sikh, a company of 2
Jodhpur infantry and some tanks from 18 Cavalry faced stubborn
resistance from Hyderabadi forces.

Day 3, September 15
Leaving a company of 3/11 Gurkhas to occupy the town of Jalna, the
remainder of the force moved to Latur, and later to Mominabad where
they faced action against the 3 Golconda Lancers who gave token
resistance before surrendering.

At the town of Surriapet, air strikes cleared most of the Hyderabadi
defences, although some Razakar units still gave resistance to the 2/5
Gurkhas who occupied the town. The retreating Hyderabadi forces
destroyed the bridge at Musi to delay the Indians but failed to offer
covering fire, allowing the bridge to be quickly repaired. Another
incident occurred at Narkatpalli where a Razakar unit was decimated by
the Indians.

Day 4, September 16
The task force under Lt. Col. Ram Singh moved towards Zahirabad at
dawn, but was slowed down by a minefield, which had to be cleared. On
reaching the junction of the Bidar road with the Solapur-Hyderabad
City Highway, the forces encountered gunfire from ambush positions.
However, leaving some of the units to handle the ambush, the bulk of
the force moved on to reach 15 kilometres beyond Zahirabad by
nightfall in spite of sporadic resistance along the way. Most of the
resistance was from Razakar units who ambushed the Indians as they
passed through urban areas. The Razakars were able to use the terrain
to their advantage until the Indians brought in their 75 mm guns.

Day 5, September 17
In the early hours of September 17, the Indian army entered Bidar.
Meanwhile, forces led by the 1st Armoured regiment were at the town of
Chityal about 60 km from the capital city, while another column took
over the town of Hingoli. By the morning of the 5th day of
hostilities, it had become clear that the Hyderabad army and the
Razakars had been routed on all fronts and with extremely heavy
casualties. The Nizam’s defeat was now imminent.

Consultations with Indian Envoy
On September 16, faced with imminent defeat, the Nizam summoned the
Prime Minister Mir Laik Ali and requested his resignation by the
morning of the following day. The resignation was delivered along with
the resignations of the entire cabinet.

On the noon of September 17, a messenger brought a personal note from
the Nizam to India’s Agent General to Hyderabad, K.M. Munshi summoning
him to the Nizam’s office at 1600 hours. At the meeting, the Nizam
stated “The vultures have resigned. I don’t know what to do”. Munshi
advised the Nizam to secure the safety of the citizens of Hyderabad by
issuing appropriate orders to the Commander of the Hyderabad State
Army, Major General El Edroos. This was immediately done.

The aftermath
“Operation Polo” resulted in moderate casualties for Indian forces,
with significantly higher losses for Hyderbadi forces. Indian losses
were 32 killed and 97 wounded. Among the Indian units, the Punjab
Regiment had by far suffered the greatest number of casualties, with
20 of its soldiers killed in action. The losses suffered by Hyderbad
state forces and Irregular forces combined were 1,863 killed, 122
wounded, and 3,558 captured. In the following weeks the state erupted
in widespread communal violence. 50,000 people may have died in the
reprisals that followed the invasion.[7] Most of the violence occurred
in the state’s rural districts, sparking large scale migration both to
the capital at Hyderabad, and to Pakistan.

The Nizam received the ceremonial post of Rajpramukh in 1950, but
resigned from this office when the states were re-organized in 1956 on
linguistic basis and large parts of Hyderabad state went to Bombay
State. Many officials and members of the royal family fled and re-
settled in Pakistan where they now live.

References
^ http://indianarmy.nic.in – Official Indian army website complete
Roll of Honor of Indian KIA
^ a b c Hyderabad 1948 Revisited IndiaDefence.com
^ http://www.boloji.com/analysis2/0233.htm
^ a b http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/MONITOR/ISSUE2-3/lns.html
^ a b http://www.indianofficer.com/forums/history-wiki/899-operation-polo-liberation-hyderabad.html
^ http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,799076-2,00.html
^ http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/history/making_history/making_history_20080527.shtml
Making History, 27 May 2008, BBC Radio 4
Zubrzycki, John. (2006) The Last Nizam: An Indian Prince in the
Australian Outback. Pan Macmillan, Australia. ISBN 978-0-3304-2321-2.
External links
A Blog by Narendra Luther on Operation polo
Picture of VII Nizam with Sardar Patel after his surrender
From the Sunderlal Report – Excerpts in FRONTLINE
Of a massacre untold – A.G.Noorani
In the Nizam’s dominion
Armchair Historian – Operation Polo (Monday, 18 September 2006) –
Contributed by Sidin Sunny Vadukut – Last Updated (Monday, 18
September 2006

From the Sundarlal Report

CONFIDENTIAL

To:

(1) The Honourable the Prime Minister, Government of India, New Delhi.

(2) The Honourable the States Minister, Government of India, New
Delhi.

Sir,

We were asked by the Government of India to proceed to Hyderabad State
on a goodwill mission. After completing our task there we now beg to
submit our report.

(1) The delegation consisting of Pandit Sundarlal, Kazi Abdul Ghaffar
and Moulana Abdulla Misri arrived at Hyderabad on the 29th of November
and returned to Delhi on the 21st of December 1948. During this period
we toured through 9 out of the 16 district s of the state, visiting 7
district headquarters, 21 towns and 23 important villages. In addition
we interviewed over 500 people from 109 such villages as we did not
visit.

Further 31 public meetings at various places and 27 private gatherings
of Hindus, Muslims, Congress men, Official Members of Jamiat Ullma and
of the Ittahadul Muslimeen, the staffs and students of some
Educational Institutions, Members of the Progressive Writers
Association and of the Hindustani Parchar Sabha, etc., were addressed
by members of the delegation.

Amongst important men and officials interviewed by us may be mentioned
H.E.H. the Nizam, H.E. the Prince of Berar, Major General Choudhri,
Mr. Bakhlo, the Chief Civil Administrator, Swami Ramanand Tirtha, Dr.
Malkote, Messrs Ramchander Rao, Ramachari, K. Vadya, Venkat Rao and
Abul Hassan Sayed Ali, Nawab Ali Yawar Jung, Nawab Zain Yar Jung, Raja
Dhonde Raj, Moulana Abu Yousuf, Moulvi Abdul Khair, and Moulvi Hameed
uddin Qamar Farooqi.

At all these meetings and interviews the main problem discussed was
that of the creation and maintenance of cordial relations between the
communities. Appeals were made to the people to forget the past and to
work unremittingly for the establishment of p eace and harmony amongst
themselves. The aim and policy of the Indian Union was also explained
and special emphasis was laid on the objective which was the
establishment of a secular government for the people of Hyderabad, in
which all of them irrespecti ve of religion, caste or creed will enjoy
equal freedom and civil rights and will have equal opportunities for
development and progress. It was made perfectly clear that the
military administration had been charged with the duty of implementing
that poli cy. We clarified our position, whenever opportunity
presented itself saying that ours was not a Commission of
investigation or Inquiry into events proceeding or following the
police action and that ours was merely a goodwill mission charged with
the task of restoring better communal relations. All the same, we feel
it our duty to bring to your notice what we saw and gathered in our
tourings, as it has, in our opinion, an importance all its own.

(2) Hyderabad State has 16 districts, comprising nearly 22,000
villages. Out of them only three districts remained practically,
though not wholly, free of communal trouble which affected the state
first during the activities of the Razakars and then duri ng the
reprisals that followed the collapse of that organisation. In another
four districts the trouble had been more serious but nothing like the
havoc that overtook the remaining eight. Out of these again the worst
sufferers have been the districts of Osmanabad, Gulburga, Bidar and
Nanded, in which four the number of people killed during and after the
police action was not less, if not more than 18,000. In the other four
districts viz. Aurangabad, Bir, Nalgunda and Medak those who lost
their lives num bered at least 5 thousand.

We can say at a very conservative estimate that in the whole state at
least 27 thousand to 40 thousand people lost their lives during and
after the police action. We were informed by the authorities that
those eight were the most affected districts and n eeded most the good
offices of our delegation. We, therefore, concentrated on these and
succeeded, we might say, to some extent at least, in dispelling the
atmosphere of mutual hostility and distrust.

It is a significant fact that out of these eight the four worst
affected districts (Osmanabad, Gulburga, Bidar and Nanded) had been
the main strongholds of Razakars and the people of these four
districts had been the worst sufferers at the hands of the R azakars.
In the town of Latur, the home of Kasim Razvi – which had been a big
business centre, with rich Kuchhi Muslim merchants, the killing
continued for over twenty days. Out of a population of about ten
thousand Muslims there we found barely three th ousand still in the
town. Over a thousand had been killed and the rest had run away with
little else besides their lives and completely ruined financially.

(3) Almost everywhere in the affected areas communal frenzy did not
exhaust itself in murder, alone in which at some places even women and
children were not spared. Rape, abduction of women (sometimes out of
the state to Indian towns such as Sholapur and Nagpur) loot, arson,
desecration of mosques, forcible conversions, seizure of houses and
lands, followed or accompanied the killing. Tens of crores worth of
property was looted or destroyed. The sufferers were Muslims who
formed a hopeless minority in r ural areas. The perpetrators of these
atrocities were not limited to those who had suffered at the hands of
Razakars, not to the non-Muslims of Hyderabad state. These latter were
aided and abetted by individuals and bands of people, with and without
arms , from across the border, who had infiltrated through in the wake
of the Indian Army. We found definite indications that a number of
armed and trained men belonging to a well known Hindu communal
organisation from Sholapur and other Indian towns as also some local
and outside communists participated in these riots and in some cases
actually led the rioters.

(4) Duty also compels us to add that we had absolutely unimpeachable
evidence to the effect that there were instances in which men
belonging to the Indian Army and also to the local police took part in
looting and even other crimes. During our tour we ga thered, at not a
few places, that soldiers encouraged, persuaded and in a few cases
even compelled the Hindu mob to loot Muslim shops and houses. At one
district town the present Hindu head of the administration told us
that there was a general loot of M uslim shops by the military. In
another district a Munsif house, among others was looted by soldiers
and a Tahsildar’s wife molested. Complaints of molestation and
abduction of girls, against Sikh soldiers particularly, were by no
means rare. We were gen erally told that at many places out of the
looted property cash, gold and silver was taken away by military while
other articles fell to the share of the mob. Unfortunately there was a
certain element in the army which was not free from communal feelings
probably because some of them could not forget the atrocities
committed elsewhere on their own kith and kin.

Lest we might be understood to imply a slur on the Indian army we
hasten to record our considered opinion that the Indian Army and its
officers in Hyderabad generally maintained a high standard of
discipline and sense of duty. In General Choudhri we foun d a man
without any tinge of communal prejudice, a firm disciplinarian and
thorough gentleman.

We were given by Muslims instances in which Hindus had defended and
given protection to their Muslim neighbours, men and women even at the
cost of their own lives. In some professions the fellow feeling was
particularly marked. For instance at places Hin du weavers defended
Muslim weavers against Hindu and protected them often at a very heavy
cost (including loss of life) to themselves. Many Hindus helped in the
recovery of abducted Muslim women.

(5) This communal trouble followed close upon the heels of the police
action and the consequent collapse of the Razakar organisation, which
had stood in the Muslim mind, as an effective barrier against the
establishment of responsible government which wa s synonymous, to the
average Hyderabadi Muslim, with Hindu Raj, because it would be based
on the will of the Hindu majority. Muslim masses were generally slow
to realise that their sufferings were the inevitable repercussions of
the atrocities committed on the Hindus only, a few days before, by the
Razakars. The Razakars movement had the sympathy of a good number of
Muslimans in Hyderabad. Such of them as dared publicly to oppose that
madness paid heavily for their temerity, so much so that one of them
fell before the bullet of an assassin. Like the Razakars the
perpetrators of crimes against the Muslims encouraged the belief that
they had the backing of the authorities…

Before closing we must gratefully acknowledge the valuable help and
willing cooperation given to us by the Military Administration in
Hyderabad, by Government officials in the districts we visited, by
public workers and prominent citizens and lastly by o ur two
Secretaries Messrs Furrukh Sayer and P.P. Ambulkar.

http://thepeopleofpakistan.wordpress.com/2010/02/28/history-of-massacres-illegal-occupation-destruction-of-hyderabad-by-india/

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/a_short_history_of_india_its_heroes_and_invaders.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_rule_in_India

http://navanavonmilita.wordpress.com/his-masters-voice-sid-harth-2/

navanavonmilita

unread,

Apr 12, 2010, 12:57:43 PM4/12/10

His Master's Voice: Sid Harth

Anti-Hindu prejudice is a negative perception or religious intolerance
against the practice and practitioners of Hinduism. Anti-Hindu
sentiments have been expressed by Muslims in Pakistan, Bangladesh,
leading to significant persecution of Hindus in those regions, such as
the 1971 Bangladesh atrocities by Pakistan, and the recent demolition
of Hindu temples in Malaysia.[1][2][citation needed]

There are also allegations of Anti-Hinduism voiced by members of the
Hindu diaspora in the West against their host societies, notably in
the United States, where these form part of the so-called "culture
wars", with cases such as the California textbook controversy over
Hindu history.

Individuals in the Indian diaspora have begun to protest that Western
scholars "distort their religion and perpetuate negative stereotypes".
[3] Historically, such stereotypes were promulgated during the British
Raj by several Indophobes in South Asia as a means to aggrandize
sectarian divisions in Indian society, part of the divide and rule
strategy employed by the British.[citation needed] Such allegations
have seen a rise with the Hindu right using them for politics.[3]

The Indian Caste System, a social stratification system in South Asia
which has been criticized for its discriminatory problems, is uniquely
blamed on Hindus and the religion of Hinduism. This is a common
stereotype, as adherents of other religions such as Islam and
Christianity have kept the practice of caste segregation in India (for
details, see Caste system among South Asian Muslims). Some in India
regard it as a social issue, rather than a religious one.[citation
needed] Several organizations in India and abroad have been criticized
by Hindu advocacy groups for these types of attacks.

The devotion to bovine animals (regarded as holy in Hinduism) is also
used as a pretext to mock the Hindu people by many in the west.
[citation needed] In addition, the Hindu tradition of cremating their
dead is used to mock the people.[citation needed]

Anti-Hindu attacks often accuse Hindus of being "Blasphemers" for
committing "idolatry" and "polytheism" (Hinduism is more accurately
described as monistic or henotheistic than polytheistic depending on
the sect or school of belief involved ). Some Anti-Hindus insist on an
interpretation of Hinduism, relating to ancient polytheistic religions
as opposed to one that relates to enlightenment or moksha. This
accusation is prevalent among adherents of monotheistic religions like
Islam and Christianity. Many Christian missionaries, particularly
those of Fundamentalist Christianity, denigrate Hindu deities as
"evil" or "demonic". Advocacy groups in the west, such as the Hindu
American Foundation and the Simon Wiesenthal Center have spoken
against anti-Hindu bigotry and prejudice.

Historical instances of anti-Hindu views

See also: Persecution of Hindus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

During Islamic Rule in the Indian Subcontinent

Parts of India have historically been subject to Islamic rulers from
the period of Muhammad bin Qasim to the Delhi Sultanate and the Mughal
Empire, as well as smaller kingdoms like the Bahmani Sultanate and
Tipu Sultans kingdom of Mysore. In almost all of those regimes, Hindus
have had an inherently inferior status to the Muslim overlords.
Islamic law demands that when under Muslim rule "polytheists" or
"infidels" be treated as dhimmis (from the Arab term) ahl-al-dhimma.
[4]

Barrani

Under the reign of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, the Muslim cleric Ziauddin
Barrani wrote several works, such as the Fatwa-i-Jahandari, which gave
him a reputation as as a "fanatical protagonist of Islam"[5] and wrote
that there should be "an all-out struggle against Hinduism",
advocating a militant and dogmatic religiosity.[6] He developed a
system of religious elitism to that effect.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_bin_Tughlaq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziauddin_Barrani

Tipu Sultan

The attitude of Muslim Ruler Tipu Sultan towards Hindus has been the
subject of acrimonious debate in India in recent times with historians
questioning the generally held belief that Tipu Sultan had a secular
outlook.[7]

In the first part of his reign in particular he appears to have been
notably more aggressive and religiously doctrinaire than his father,
Haidar Ali.[8] Malayalam writer V.V.K. Valath has claimed[9] that
Tippu Sultan was a religious persecutor of Hindus. In 1780 CE he
declared himself to be the Padishah or Emperor of Mysore, and struck
coinage in his own name without reference to the reigning Mughal
Emperor Shah Alam II. H. D. Sharma writes that in his correspondence
with other Islamic rulers such as Shah Zaman of Afghanistan, Tippu
Sultan used this title and declared that he intended to establish an
Islamic Empire in the entire country, along the lines of the Mughal
Empire which was at its nadir during the period in question.[10] His
alliance with the French was supposedly aimed at achieving this goal
by driving his main rivals, the British, out of the subcontinent.

C. K. Kareem also notes that Tippu Sultan issued an edict for the
destruction of Hindu temples in Kerala.[11]. The archaeological survey
of India has listed three temples - throughout India - which were
destroyed during the reign of Tipu Sultan. These were the
Harihareshwar Temple at Harihar which was converted into a mosque, the
Varahswami Temple in Seringapatam and the Odakaraya Temple in Hospet.
[12]. The list is incomplete and has not concidered temples such as in
Keladi, Ikkeri and Sagar

S.Chandrasekar, Travel writer & Photographer,2010, records from his
family genealogy (Visanasola,Kuthsa gothra,Telugu Konaseema Dravidlu):
"One of my anscestors, Someswara Iyer was mistakenly imprisoned by
Tipu in 1789. He was a pure saivite and an innocent brahmin. He
refused to eat or drink in prison due to shame and humiliation. Soon
he drooned and fell unconscious. That night Lord appeared in the dream
of Tipu and ordered him to release the poor brahmin. Tipu apoligised
and repented for the sin committed. Someswaran was too fragile and
couldn't move. Tipu asked his court physician to smear battered
curdrice paste throughout the body twice a day. His skin pores
absorbed them. On the third day it was said that he regained energy to
speak. Tipu granted few villages and an emerald shiva linga to
Someswaran Iyer as a token of respect. The lands and lingam have
vanished over the centuries. Henceforth Someswara Iyer was called
Nawab Somayajulu (wife Subbulakshmi). They belonged to the Konaseema
Telugu speaking kuthsa-gothra brahmin family of southindia Konaseema
dravidlu, kuthsa gothram, Visanasola telugu brahmins ‎. Someswaran was
the 8th descendent from Madhyarjunam Subbarao who was a minister at
the court of King Sri Krishnadevaraya of Vijayanagara Empire c.1500AD
(approx.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konaseema_dravidlu,_kuthsa_gothram,_Visanasola_telugu_brahmins

After such attrocities, Tipu's view towards hinduism changed
completely and the history recorded his seeking reverential advice
from the then Sringeri pontiff Sri Sacchidananda Bharati III (1770–
1814). The Sringeri Sarada Peetam has in its safe possession some 24
letters written by the Sultan. Tipu had donated many silver vessels
and gold ornaments to Sri Ranganatha swamy at Seringaptnam which is at
stone's throw from his palace. He had a daily darshan of the temple
gopura from his balcony.

Historian Hayavadana C. Rao wrote about Tippu in his encyclopaedic
work on the History of Mysore. He asserted that Tippu's "religious
fanaticism and the excesses committed in the name of religion, both in
Mysore and in the provinces, stand condemned for all time. His
bigotry, indeed, was so great that it precluded all ideas of
toleration". He further asserts that the acts of Tippu that were
constructive towards Hindus were largely political and ostentatious
rather than an indication of genuine tolerance.[13]

Whilst no scholar has denied that, in common with most rulers of his
period, Tippu’s campaigns were often characterized by great brutality,
some historians claim that this was not exclusively religiously
motivated, and did not amount to a consistent anti-Hindu policy.
Brittlebank, Hasan, Chetty, Habib and Saletare amongst others argue
that stories of Tippu's religious persecution of Hindus and Christians
are largely derived from the work of early British authors such as
Kirkpatrick[14] and Wilks,[15] whom they do not consider to be
entirely reliable.[16] A. S. Chetty argues that Wilks’ account in
particular cannot be trusted.[17]

Although the attitudes of Muslim ruler Tippu Sultan have been
criticized as being anti-Hindu by Indian historians, left-wing
historians note that he had an egalitarian attitude towards Hindus and
was harsh towards them only when politically expedient [18]. Former
IAS Officer, Praxy Fernandes has mentioned in his book that Tipu
Sultan displayed reverence to the head of the Hindu Shringeri Mutt, by
sending a silver palanquin and a pair of silver chauris to the Sarada
Temple [12].

Irfan Habib and Mohibbul Hasan argue that these early British authors
had a strong vested interest in presenting Tippu Sultan as a tyrant
from whom the British had "liberated" Mysore.[19] This assessment is
echoed by Brittlebank in her recent work[20] These claims not
withstanding, one can see vandalized temples in Ikkeri to understand
the fairness of arguments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irfan_Habib
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikkeri

During Portuguese rule in Goa

During the Portuguese rule in Goa, thousands of Hindus were coerced
into accepting Christianity by passing laws that made it difficult to
practice their faith, harassing them under false pretences or petty
complaints and giving favourable status to converts and mestiços in
terms of laws and jobs [21]. It is alleged that during the Goa
Inquisition, thousands of Goan Hindus were massacred by Portuguese
rulers, starting in the year 1560. The inquisition was proposed by St.
Francis Xavier[22]

During the British Raj

During the British rule of the Indian subcontinent, several
evangelical Christian missionaries spread anti-Hindu propaganda as a
means to convert Hindus to Christianity. Examples include missionaries
like Abbe J.A. Dubois, who wrote "Once the devadasis' temple duties
are over, they open their cells of infamy, and frequently convert the
temple itself into a stew. A religion more shameful or indecent has
never existed amongst a civilized people" [23]

In Charles Grant's highly influential "Observations on the ...Asiatic
subjects of Great Britain" (1796),[24] Grant criticized the
Orientalists for being too respectful to Indian culture and religion.
His work tried to determine the Hindu's "true place in the moral
scale", and he alleged that the Hindus are "a people exceedingly
depraved".

In the West

By the late 19th century, fear had already begun in North America over
Chinese immigration supplying cheap labor to lay railroad tracks,
mostly in California and elsewhere in the West Coast. In xenophobic
jargon common in the day, ordinary workers, newspapers, and
politicians uniformly opposed this "Yellow Peril". The common cause to
eradicate Asians from the workforce gave rise to the Asiatic Exclusion
League. When the fledging Indian community of mostly Punjabi Sikhs
settled in California, the xenophobia expanded to combat not only the
East Asian Yellow Peril, but now the immigrants from British India,
the Turban Tide, equally referred to as the Hindoo Invasion (sic).[25]
[26][27]

The rise of the Indian American community in the United States has
brought about some isolated incidences of attacks on them, as has been
the case with many minority groups in the United States. Attacks
specific to Hindus in the United States stem from what is often
referred to as the "racialization of religion" among Americans, a
process that begins when certain phenotypical features associated with
a group and attached to race in popular discourse become associated
with a particular religion or religions.The racialization of Hinduism
in American perception has led to perceiving Hindus as a separate
group and contributes to prejudices against them.[28]

Pat Robertson

In addition, there have been anti-Hindu views that are specific to the
religion of Hinduism as well as mistaken racial perceptions. Christian
televangelists such as Pat Robertson in the United States has made
remarks that are regarded as anti-Hindu, if not racist,[29] denouncing
Hinduism as "demonic" and evoking similar canards against Hinduism.
These remarks were widely condemned and rebutted by Indian Americans
and many non-partisan advocacy groups.[30] Other Fundamentalist
Christian evangelicals such as Albert Mohler have defended the anti-
Hindu remarks and made disparaging statements about Hinduism as
"satanic", laced together with anti-Buddhist and Islamophobic rhetoric.
[31]

Tony Brown

In 2001, an American talk show host Tony Brown, made several
derogatory anti-Hindu remarks in his talk show on WLS 890 AM that
began with the concern among American workers about the influx of
software engineers from India. He evoked anti-Hindu canards such as
exaggerating the importance of the Caste System in Hinduism, and made
patent falsehoods about Human Rights in India. Protests by Indian-
American community leaders led to the radio host publicly apologizing
for his remarks against Hindus and Hinduism. In his apology, Brown
said:

“ The statements I made were derived from either books or articles
that I read. Still, I had not considered the possibility of bigots
using the information to persecute the Hindu minority in this
country.That does not excuse me from the pain that I have caused by
not being more circumspect.[32] ”

After his apology, Brown also invited Swami Atmajnanananda of the
Washington branch of the Ramakrishna Mission and an Indian journalist
based in Chicago, J V Lakshmana Rao, to participate in the talk show.
Atmajnanananda said one must draw a distinction between caste and
casteism. He said:

“ The assumption that Hindus are inherently racists is dangerous.Caste
does not play a role in one's occupation any more. One should not use
the pitfalls of the Indian culture to attack Hinduism.[32] ”

Refuting Brown's statement that lower castes were being persecuted in
India, Rao spoke of affirmative actions in favor of the lower castes

by the Government of India.

Denver Post

On April 28, 2004, an article on the Denver Post, authored by thoracic
and general surgeons and a commentator on National Public Radio in USA
Pius Kamau, portrayed the entire Indian community and the Hindus with
"bigoted views". Widespread letter-writing and protests from the
Indian American community, the Denver post responded by conveying the
writer and editor's apologies.[33]

On May 6 of that year, Denver Post also published a strong rebuttal to
the original article By P.K. Vedanthan titled "Healing ethnic wounds".
[33]

Hindu American Foundation

The Hindu American Foundation, together with organizations like the
American Jewish Committee, have worked to counter perceived biases
against Hindus and Jews in college campuses like Stanford University.
Both groups claim to have identified cases of academic hostility
against both minorities.[34]

In 2005, The Hindu American Foundation protested against the
defamation of Hinduism in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle
alleging the false anti-Hindu canard of rape being a "just punishment
for criminal behavior". The author removed the statement following the
protest.[35]

In the same year, HAF also protested against an anti-Hindu article
published in the Los Angeles Times where the writer, Paul Watson also
equates Hinduism with the worship of cows and snakes.[36]

US Congress

In July, 2007, The United States Senate conducted its morning prayer
services with a Hindu prayer[37], a historical first. During the
service, three disruptors, named Ante Nedlko Pavkovic, Katherine Lynn
Pavkovic and Christian Renee Sugar, from the Fundamentalist Christian
activist group Operation Save America [7] protested that the Hindu
prayer was "an abomination", and that they were "Christians and
Patriots". They were swiftly arrested and charged with disrupting
Congress.[38][39].

The event generated a storm of protest from Fundamentalist Christian
groups in the country, with the American Family Association posting
lengthy anti-Hindu diatribes on their website.[40] Their
representative attacked the proceedings as "gross idolatry" [41]

The chairman of the United States and India Political Action
Committee, Sanjay Puri, has circulated a letter to the organization
protesting the move as an act of bigotry. He writes:

“ It is our hope and goal that we can open up this dialogue because we
were dismayed to see the communication made to your members that was
blatantly offensive and factually erroneous. As a United States
organization representing the Indian American community, which
includes diverse groups from various religious backgrounds, we hope
that you will make efforts to bring people together.[42] ”

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who had invited Zed to conduct the
service, responded to the protest by defending his actions. He said:

“ If people have any misunderstanding about Indians and Hindus," Reid
said, "all they have to do is think of Gandhi," a man "who gave his
life for peace.I think it speaks well of our country that someone
representing the faith of about a billion people comes here and can
speak in communication with our heavenly Father regarding peace.[41]
”

Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation
of Church and State, said the protest "shows the intolerance of many
religious right activists. They say they want more religion in the
public square, but it’s clear they mean only their religion."[41]

In South Asia

Afghanistan

The Taliban regime in Afghanistan was known for its extremist
attitudes and views on Islam, including their strict enforcement of
Islamic sharia law in the society. The Taliban regime declared that
Hindus would be required to wear badges in public identifying
themselves as Hindus, ostensibly to "protect them". This was part of
the Taliban's plan to segregate "un-Islamic" and "idolatrous"
communities from Islamic ones.[43]

The decree was regarded as an anti-Hindu one by several lawmakers and
congressmen in the United States, as well as by the Indian Government.
[44] There were widespread protests against this decree in both India
and the United States. In the United States, chairman of the Anti-
Defamation League Abraham Foxman compared the decree to the practices
of Nazi Germany, where Jews were required to wear labels identifying
them as such.[45] In the United States, congressmen wore yellow badges
on the floor of the Senate during the debate as a demonstration of
their solidarity with the Hindu minority in Afghanistan.[44]

[edit] Pakistan
In Pakistan, anti-Hindu sentiments and beliefs are widely held among
many sections of the population. There is a general stereotype against
Hindus in Pakistan. Hindus are regarded as "miserly".[46] Also, Hindus
are often regarded as "Kaffirs" (lit. "unbelievers") and blamed for
"causing all the problems in Pakistan".[47] Islamic fundamentalist
groups operating within Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan have
broadcasted or disseminated anti-Hindu propaganda among the masses,
[48] referring to Hindus as "Hanood" and blaming them for
"collaborating with the foreigners" against the people of the region.

The Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), a coalition of Islamist political
parties in Pakistan, calls for the increased Islamization of the
government and society, specifically taking an anti-Hindu stance. The
MMA leads the opposition in the national assembly, held a majority in
the NWFP Provincial Assembly, and was part of the ruling coalition in
Balochistan. However, some members of the MMA made efforts to
eliminate their rhetoric against Hindus.[49]

The public school curriculum in Pakistan was Islamized during the
1980s.[50] The government of Pakistan claims to undertake a major
revision to eliminate such teachings and to remove Islamic teaching
from secular subjects.[49] The bias in Pakistani textbooks was also
documented by Y. Rosser (2003). She wrote that

“ in the past few decades, social studies textbooks in Pakistan have
been used as locations to articulate the hatred that Pakistani policy
makers have attempted to inculcate towards their Hindu neighbours”,
and that as a result "in the minds of generations of Pakistanis,
indoctrinated by the 'Ideology of Pakistan' are lodged fragments of
hatred and suspicion. ”

(Rosser 2003)[51]

The bias in Pakistani textbooks was studied by Rubina Saigol, Pervez
Hoodbhoy, K. K. Aziz, I. A. Rahman, Mubarak Ali, A. H. Nayyar, Ahmed
Saleem, Y. Rosser and others.

A study by Nayyar & Salim (2003) that was conducted with 30 experts of
Pakistan's education system, found that the textbooks contain
statements that seek to create hate against Hindus. There was also an
emphasis on Jihad, Shahadat, wars and military heroes. The study
reported that the textbooks also had a lot of gender-biased
stereotypes. Some of the problems in Pakistani textbooks cited in the
report were:

“ Insensitivity to the existing religious diversity of the nation”;
"Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of
Jihad and Shahadat”; a “glorification of war and the use of force”;
"Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially
distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history";
“Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination
towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities,
and other towards nations” and “Omission of concepts ... that could
encourage critical self awareness among students”. (Nayyar & Salim
2003).The Pakistani Curriculum document for classes K-V stated in 1995
that "at the completion of Class-V, the child should be able to
"Understand Hindu-Muslim differences and the resultant need for
Pakistan. ”

[pg154]

A more recent textbook published in Pakistan titled "A Short History
of Pakistan" edited by Ishtiaq Hussain Qureshi has been heavily
criticized by academic peer-reviewers for anti-Hindu biases and
prejudices that are consistent with Pakistani nationalism, where
Hindus are portrayed as "villains" and Muslims as "victims" living
under the "disastrous Hindu rule" and "betraying the Muslims to the
British", characterizations that academic reviewers fond "disquieting"
and having a "warped subjectivity".[52][53][54]

Ameer Hamza, a leader of the banned terrorist group Lashkar-e-Toiba,
wrote a highly derogatory book about Hinduism in 1999 called "Hindu Ki
Haqeeqat" ("Reality of (a) Hindu"); he was not prosecuted by the
Government.[55]

Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, the Bangladesh National Party is regarded as an anti-
Hindu party, and reportedly encourages anti-Hindu views and sentiments
among the Muslim majority.[citation needed] Prominent political
leaders frequently fall back on "Hindu bashing" in an attempt to
appeal to extremist sentiment and to stir up communal passions.[56] In
one of the most notorious utterances of a mainstream Bangladeshi
figure, the then Prime Minister Khaleda Zia, while leader of the
opposition in 1996, declared that the country was at risk of hearing
"uludhhwani" (a Bengali Hindu custom involving women's ululation) from
mosques, replacing the azaan (Muslim call to prayer) (eg, see Agence-
France Press report of 18 November 1996, "Bangladesh opposition leader
accused of hurting religious sentiment").

Even the supposedly secular Awami League is not immune from this kind
of scare-mongering. The current prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, was
alleged to have accused Bangladeshi Hindu leaders in New York of
having divided loyalties with "one foot in India and one in
Bangladesh". Successive events such as this have contributed to a
feeling of tremendous insecurity among the Hindu minority.[57]

The fundamentalists and right-wing parties such as the Bangladesh
Nationalist Party and Jatiya Party often portray Hindus as being
sympathetic to India, making accusations of dual loyalty and
allegations of transferring economic resources to India, contributing
to a widespread perception that Bangladeshi Hindus are disloyal to the
state. Also, the right wing parties claim the Hindus to be backing the
Awami League.[58]

As widely documented in international media, Bangladesh authorities
have had to increase security to enable Bangladeshi Hindus to worship
freely[59] following widespread attacks on places of worship and
devotees.

India

Extremist fringes within the broader movement for Dalits, such as
Dalit Voice have expressed anti-Hindu views and sentiments, demanding
the eradication of Hindus and expressing support for various Islamist
groups around the world.[60]

Other countries
South Africa

South Africa is home to a small Hindu minority. In 2006, the son of an
Islamic cleric named Ahmed Deedat, circulated a DVD that denounced
South African Hindus. The elder Deedat, former head of the Arab funded
"Islamic Propagation Centre International" (IPCI), had previously
circulated an anti-Hindu video in the 80's where he said that Indian
Muslims were 'fortunate' that their Hindu forefathers 'saw the light'
and converted to Islam when Muslim rulers dominated some areas of
India. His video was widely criticized. While Hindus in South Africa
have largely ignored the new anti-Hindu DVD circulated by Deedat
Junior, he has been severely criticized by local Muslims, including
other members of the IPCI.[citation needed]The IPCI said in a
statement that Yusuf Deedat did not represent the organisation in any
way. Deedat Junior, undeterred by the opposition from his own
brethren, continues to circulate the material.He has placed
advertisements in newspapers inviting anyone to collect a free copy
from his residence to see for themselves "what the controversy is
about".[61]

Anti-Hindu crimes
See also persecution of Hindus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Hindus

Hate crime statistics against Hindus in North American countries are
unavailable. However, it is believed that sporadic bouts of communal
and institutional hatred against Hindus have occurred, though their
frequency may have decreased in recent years. In the late 1980s a
Jersey City street gang calling themselves the "Dotbusters" targeted,
threatened and attacked South Asians, specifically Hindus.[62]

On July 20, 2006, The Hindu American Foundation represented Hindus as
a part of a coalition of civil rights, educational and religious
submitting comments to the Department of Justice on its implementation
of the Hate Crime Statistics Act (HCSA). Enacted by Congress in 1990,
the HCSA requires the Justice Department to acquire data on crimes
which "manifest prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation,
or ethnicity" from law enforcement agencies across the country and to
publish an annual report of its the findings.[63]

More recent anti-Hindu violence

There have been a number of more recent attacks on Hindu temples and
Hindus by Muslim militants. Prominent among them are the 1998 Chamba
massacre, the 2002 fidayeen attacks on Raghunath temple, the 2002
Akshardham Temple attack allegedly perpetrated by Islamic terrorist
outfit Lashkar-e-Toiba[64], the 2006 Lahore temple demolition, and the
2006 Varanasi bombings (supposedly perpetrated by Lashkar-e-Toiba),
resulting in many deaths and injuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Chamba_massacre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_fidayeen_attacks_on_Raghunath_temple
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akshardham_Temple_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lashkar-e-Toiba
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lahore_temple_demolition
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Varanasi_bombings

Notes

^ "Who were the Shudras", B. R. Ambedkar http://www.saxakali.com/
^ Shudras in Ancient India, R. Chandra and K.L. Chanchreek. New Delhi,
Shree Pub., 2004, ISBN 81-88658-65-0.
^ Early Evidence for Caste in South India http://www.tamilnation.org/caste/hart.pdf
^ Oxford English Dictionary, s. v. "Sudra" sic
^ Sastri, K. Rama (1982). "Akkalapundi grant of Singaya-Nayaka: Saka-
Samvat 1290" Epigraphica Indica, vol. XIII. India: Archaeological
Survey of India. pp. 259ff., v.5–7.
^ Sastri, K. Rama (1982). "Akkalapundi grant of Singaya-Nayaka: Saka-
Samvat 1290" Epigraphica Indica, vol. XIII. India: Archaeological
Survey of India. p. 261.

External links

The Jati-Varna Matrix
http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/castejati-varna.html
Caste System in Bengal
http://tanmoy.tripod.com/bengal/caste.html
Dictionary definition of Shudra
http://bopedia.com/en/wikipedia/s/sh/shudra.html
Contribution of Backward-caste Hindu Saints
http://hinduwiki.com/index.php?title=Backward-caste_Hindu_Saints

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shudra

Manusmṛti

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Redirected from Manu Smriti)

Manusmṛti or Manusmriti (Sanskrit: मनुस्मृति), also known as Mānava-
Dharmaśāstra (Sanskrit: मानवधर्मशास्त्र), is the most important and
earliest metrical work of the Dharmaśāstra textual tradition of
Hinduism.[1] Generally known in English as the Laws of Manu, it was
first translated into English in 1794 by Sir William Jones, an English
Orientalist and judge of the British Supreme Court of Judicature in
Calcutta.[2] The text presents itself as a discourse given by Manu,
the progenitor of mankind to a group of seers, or rishis, who beseech
him to tell them the "law of all the social classes" (1.2). Manu
became the standard point of reference for all future Dharmaśāstras
that followed it.[3]

According to Hindu tradition, the Manusmriti records the words of
Brahma.[4] By attributing the words to supernatural forces, the text
takes on an authoritative tone as a statement on Dharma, in opposition
to previous texts in the field, which were more scholarly.[5]

Date and context

The text shows the obvious influence of previous Dharmasutras and
Arthasastric work. In particular, the Manu Smriti was the first to
adopt the term vyavaharapadas. These eighteen Titles of Law or Grounds
for Litigation make up more than one fifth of the work and deal
primarily with matters of the king, state, and judicial procedure.[5]
Though most scholars had previously considered the text a composite
put together over a long period of time, Olivelle has recently argued
that the complex and consistent structure of the text suggests a
single author. However, no details of this eponymous author's life are
known, though it is likely that he belonged to a conservative Brahmin
caste somewhere in Northern India.[3]

A range of historical opinion generally dates composition of the text
any time between 200 BCE and 200 CE.[6] After the breakdown of the
Maurya and Shunga empires, there was a period of uncertainty that led
to renewed interest in traditional social norms.[7] In Thapar's view,
"The severity of the Dharma-shastras was doubtless a commentary
arising from the insecurity of the orthodox in an age of flux."[8]

The dharma class of texts were also noteworthy because they did not
depend on the authority of particular Vedic schools, becoming the
starting point of an independent tradition that emphasized dharma
itself and not its Vedic origins.[9]

Structure

The original treatise consisted of one thousand chapters of law,
polity, and pleasure given by Brahmā. His son, Manu, learns these
lessons and proceeds to teach his own students, including Bhrigu.
Bhrigu then relays this information in the Manu Smriti, to an audience
of his own pupils.[10]

This original narrative was subdivided later into twelve chapters.
There is debate over the effects of this division on the underlying,
holistic manner in which the original treatise was written.[11] The
book is written in simple verse as opposed to the metrical verse of
the preceding dharmasutras. Manu also introduced a unique
“transitional verse” which segued the end of one subject and the
beginning of the next.

The treatise is written with a frame story, in which a dialogue takes
place between Manu’s disciple, Bhrigu, and an audience of his own
students. The story begins with Manu himself detailing the creation of
the world and the society within it, structured around four social
classes. Bhrigu takes over for the remainder of the work, teaching the
details of the rest of Manu’s teachings. The audience reappears twice
more, asking first to ask about how Brahmins can be subjected to
death, and second to ask the effects of action.[12]

Table of Contents

This Table of Contents comes from Olivelle's translation of the Manu
Smriti and provides the transitional verses between each subject:[13]

1. Origin of the World (1.1-119)

2. Sources of the Law (2.1-24)

"I have described to you above succinctly the source of the Law, as
also the origin of this whole world. Learn now the Laws of the social
classes." (2.25)

3. Dharma of the Four Social Classes (2.25-11.266)

3.1 Rules Relating to Law (2.25-10.131)
3.1.1 Rules of Action in Normal Times (2.26-9.336)
3.1.1.1 Fourfold Dharma of a Brahmin (2.26-6.97)
"I have explained to you above the fourfold Law of Brahmins, a Law
that is holy and brings imperishable rewards after death. Listen now
to the Law of kings." (6.97)

3.1.1.2 Rules of Action for a King (7.1-9.325)
"I have described above in its entirety the eternal rules of action
for the king. What follows, one should understand, are the rules of
action for the Vaiśyas and Śūdras in their proper order." (9.325)

3.1.1.3 Rules of Action for Vaiśyas and Śūdras (9.325-36)
"I have described above the splendid rules of action for the social
classes outside times of adversity. Listen now to the rules for them
in the proper order for times of adversity." (9.336)

3.1.2 Rules of Action in Times of Adversity (10.1-129)
"I have described above the entire set of rules pertaining to the Law
of the four classes. Next, I will explain the splendid rules
pertaining to penance." (10.131)

3.2 Rules Relating to Penance (11.1-265)
"You have described this Law for the four classes in its entirety, O
Sinless One! Teach us accurately the ultimate consummation of the
fruits of actions." (12.1)

4. Determination Regarding Engagement in Action (12.3-116)
"Bhrgu, the son of Manu and the very embodiment of the Law, said to
those great seers: ‘Listen to the determination with respect to
engagement in action.’" (12.2)

4.1 Fruits of Action (12.3-81)
"I have declared to you above all the fruits arising from actions.
Listen now to these rules of action for a Brahmin, rules that secure
the supreme good." (12.82)

4.2 Rules of Action for Supreme God (12.83-115)
"I have explained to you above all the best means of securing the
supreme good. A Brahmin who does not deviate from them obtains the
highest state." (12.116)

Nature and Purpose

The Manu Smriti is written with a focus on the “shoulds” of dharma
rather than on the actuality of everyday practice in India at the
time. Still, its practical application should not be underestimated.
Through intermediate forces such as the instruction of scholars, the
teachings did indeed have indirect effect on major segments of the
Indian population. It is also an invaluable point of common reference
in scholarly debates.[14]

It seems likely that the book was written in a manner which was very
mindful to the dangers facing the Brahmin community during a time of
much change and social upheaval. A renewed alliance between the
Brahmin and Kṣatra communities is clearly a goal reflected in the
introduction of the vyavahārapadas.[15] The emphasis which this topic
receives can be seen as an offering of solidarity from the religious
community to the ruling class.

Commentaries on Manu

There have been numerous commentaries written on the Manu Smṛti. Some
of the major commentaries are listed below:

Bhāruci

Bhāruci is the oldest known commentator on the Manu Smṛti. Kane places
him in the late 10th or early 11 century,[16] Olivelle places him in
the 8th century,[17] and Derrett places him between 600-650 CE.[17]
From these three opinions we can place Bhāruci anywhere from the early
seventh century CE to the early eleventh century CE. The surviving
portion of Bhāruci's commentary that we have today deals mostly with
the duties of the king and whether or not the king can be a source of
dharma.

Medhātithi

Medhātithi is one of the most famous commentators on the Manu Smṛti,
and there is some debate regarding the location in which he was
writing, but scholars such as Buhler, Kane, and Lingat tend to believe
he was from Kashmir or the area around Kashmir. The exact date that
Medhātithi was writing is also unclear, and he has been placed
anywhere between 820CE and 1050CE.[18]

Economic Ideas

Economic Ideas Embedded in Manusmriti has been given in detail by
Ratan Lal Basu.[19]

Views and criticism

The work is considered an important source for sociological, political
and historical studies. Manu Smriti is one of the most heavily
criticized of the scriptures of Hinduism, having been attacked by
colonial scholars, modern liberals, Hindu reformists, Dalit advocates,
feminists[20] , Marxists and certain groups of traditional Hindus,
namely Smartas[citation needed]. Much of its criticism stems from its
unknown authority, as some believe the text to be authoritative, but
others do not. There is also debate over whether the text has suffered
from later interpolations of verses.

In northern/southern India Vaishnavism and Shaivism were the common
religious traditions, and the teachings of the Manu Smriti was not as
widely followed or well-known.

In 300 BCE, Megasthenes wrote that the people around the Mathura
region worshipped Harculas (Hari-Krishna) and followed the Gita as
daily life principles. Also Faxian did not mention anything about
rigid-ness of the varna systems. Chanakya, the author of Arthashastra,
never mentioned any social laws prevailing in the society during the
first integrator and Mauryan Emperor Chandragupta's reign.

The Manu Smriti was one of the first Sanskrit texts studied by the
British. It was first translated into English by the founder of
indology, Sir William Jones. His version was published in 1794.[21]
British administrative requirements encouraged their interest in the
Dharmashastras, which they believed to be legal codes. In fact, these
were not codes of law but norms related to social obligations and
ritual requirements.[22] According to Avari:

The text was never universally followed or acclaimed by the vast
majority of Indians in their history; it came to the world's attention
through a late eighteenth-century translation by Sir William Jones,
who mistakenly exaggerated both its antiquity and its importance.
Today many of its ideas are popularised as the golden norm of
classical Hindu law by Hindu universalists. They are, however,
anathema to modern thinkers and particularly feminists.[23]
The "Law of Manu" was cited favorably by the German philosopher
Friedrich Nietzsche, who deemed it "an incomparably spiritual and
superior work" to the Christian Bible. He observed that "the sun
shines on the whole book" and attributed its ethical perspective to
"the noble classes, the philosophers and warriors, [who] stand above
the mass."[24] However, he also criticized it for its abusive
treatment of the chandala, claiming that "this organization too found
it necessary to be terrible."[25]

Surendra Kumar, who counts a total of 2,685 verses, finds that only
1,214 are authentic, the other 1,471 being interpolations on the text.
[26] In reply to the criticism of the sudra caste, the verses critical
of the sudras and women are considered to be later interpolations, but
not later than Adi Shankara (7th-8th century CE). The law in Manu
Smriti also appears to be overtly positive towards the brahmin
(priest) caste in terms of concessions made in fines and punishments.
The stance of the Manu Smriti about women has also been debated. While
certain verses such as (III - 55, 56, 57, 59, 62) glorify the position
of women, other verses (IX - 3, 17) seem to attack the position and
freedom women have. The education of women is also discussed in the
text. Certain interpretations of Verse (IX - 18) claim that it
discourages women from reading Vedic scriptures. Verse (II - 240),
however, allows women to read Vedic scriptures. Similar contradictory
phrases are encountered in relation to child marriage in verses (IX -
94) and (IX - 90).

In his book Revolution and Counter-Revolution in India, Dalit leader
B. R. Ambedkar asserted that Manu Smriti was written by a sage named
Brigu during the times of Pushyamitra of Sangha in connection with
social pressures caused by the rise of Buddhism.[27] However,
historian Romila Thapar considers these claims to be exaggerations.
She writes that archaeological evidence casts doubt on the claims of
Buddhist persecution by Pushyamitra.[28] Support of the Buddhist faith
by the Sungas at some point is suggested by an epigraph on the gateway
of Bharhut, which mentions its erection "during the supremacy of the
Sungas"[29] Hinduism does not evangelize.[30]

However, not all Hindus agree with the criticisms of the text, or the
assertion that the Manu Smriti is not authoritative. Some prominent
Hindu figures, such as Swami Dayananda Saraswati[31] and A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami,[32] hold the text to be authentic and
authoritative. Other admirers of the text have included Annie Besant,
P.D. Ouspensky, Pandurang Shastri Athavale and Sarvepalli
Radhakrishnan. Friedrich Nietzsche is noted to have said "Close the
Bible and open the Manu Smriti. “It has an affirmation of life, a
triumphing agreeable sensation in life and that to draw up a lawbook
such as Manu means to permit oneself to get the upper hand, to become
perfection, to be ambitious of the highest art of living"[33]

Notes

^ See Flood 1996: 56 and Olivelle 2005.
^ Jones's translation is available online as The Institutes of Hindu
Law: Or, The Ordinances of Manu, Calcutta: Sewell & Debrett, 1796.
^ a b Olivelle, "Literary History," p. 16.
^ Olivelle(2004), p. xx.
^ a b Olivelle, Literary History, p. 17.
^ For composition between 200 BCE and 200 CE see: Avari, p. 142. For
dating of composition "between the second century BCE and third
century CE" see: Flood (1996), p. 56. For dating of Manu Smriti in
"final form" to the second century CE, see: Keay, p. 103. For dating
as completed some time between 200 BCE and 100 CE see: Hopkins, p. 74.
For probable origination during the second or third centuries AD, see:
Kulke and Rothermund, p. 85. For the text as preserved dated to around
the 1st century BCE. see: Encyclopedia Britannica Concise,
http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9371223/Manu-smrti,
retrieved 2007-06-24
^ For significance of post-empire social uncertainty as a factor in
the development of the Code of Manas, see: Kulke and Rothermund, p.
85.
^ Tharpar (2002), p. 279.
^ For the dharmashastras, including Manu Smriti, as the starting point
for an independent tradition not dependent on Vedic origins, see:
Hopkins, p. 74.
^ Olivelle(2004), pp. xxi-xxii.
^ Olivelle(2004), pp. xxvii.
^ Olivelle(2004), p. xxv.
^ Olivelle(2004), pp. xxviii-xxix.
^ Olivelle(2004), p. xxli.
^ Olivelle, Literary History, p. 19.
^ Kane, P. V., History of Dharmaśāstra, (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part I, 566.
^ a b Olivelle, Patrick, "Dharmaśāstra: A Literary History", 29.
^ Kane, P. V., History of Dharmaśāstra, (Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute, 1975), Volume I, Part II, 583.
^ Ratan Lal Basu & Rajkumar Sen, 2008, Ancient Indian Economic
Thought, Relevance for Today, ISBN 81-316-0125-0, Rawat Publications,
New Delhi
^ For objections to the work by feminists, see: Avari, pp. 142-143.
^ For Manu Smriti as one of the first Sanskrit texts noted by the
British and translation by Sir William Jones in 1794, see: Flood
(1996), p. 56.
^ For British interest in Dharmashastras due to administrative needs,
and their misinterpretation of them as legal codes rather than as
social and ritual texts, see: Thapar (2002), pp. 2-3.
^ Avari, p. 142.
^ Friedrich Nietzche, The Antichrist (1888), 56-57.
^ Friedrich Nietzche, Twilight of the Idols (1888).
^ Surendra Kumar, Vishuddha Manusmriti, (Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust,
Delhi, Fourth Edition), p. 5.
^ Revolution and Counter-Revolution in India
^ Romila Thapar, Asoka and the Decline of the Mauryas, Oxford
University Press (1960) p. 200.
^ John Marshall, "An Historical and Artistic Description of Sanchi",
from A Guide to Sanchi, citing p. 11. Calcutta: Superintendent,
Government Printing (1918). Pp. 7-29 on line, Project South Asia.
^ K. V. Rao, Socialism, Secularism, and Democracy in India, pp. 28-30.
Nagendra K. Singh, Enforcement of Human Rights in Peace and War and
the Future of Humanity, p. 35. Martinus Nijhoff (1986) ISBN
9024733022
^ The Light of Truth, Chapter 4
^ Bhagavad Gita As It Is, Chapter 16 Text 7 - "...Even up to today,
those who are Hindu follow the Manu-samhita..."
^ Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, vol. 1.

References

Flood, Gavin (1996). An Introduction to Hinduism. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. ISBN 0-521-43878-0.
Hopkins, Thomas J. (1971). The Hindu Religious Tradition. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Keay, John (2000). India: A History. New York: Grove Press. ISBN
0-8021-3797-0.
Kulke, Hermann; Rothermund, Dietmar (1986). A History of India. New
York: Barnes & Noble. ISBN 0-88029-577-5.
Olivelle, Patrick (2005). Manu's Code of Law: A Critical Edition and
Translation of the Mānava-Dharmaśāstra. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. ISBN 0-195-17146-2.
Thapar, Romila (2002). Early India: From the Origins to AD 1300.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN
0-520-24225-4.
Translation by G. Bühler (1886). Sacred Books of the East: The Laws of
Manus (Vol. XXV). Oxford. Available online as The Laws of Manu
"The Laws of Manu". Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton
Company. 1913. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/The_Laws_of_Manu.
Olivelle, Patrick (2004). The Law Code of Manu. New York: OUP. ISBN
0192802712.
Olivelle, Patrick (to be published). "Dharmasastra: A Literary
History". in Lubin, Timothy; Krishnan, Jayanth; and Davis, Jr., Donald
R.. Law and Hinduism: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manu_Smriti

Hindu
Ramendra Nath

Originally published by Bihar Rationalist Society (Bihar Buddhiwadi
Samaj) 1993.
Electronically reprinted with permission.

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.

The Meaning of "Hindu"

The word "Hindu" is a much-abused word in the sense that it has been
used to mean different things at different times. For example, some
people even now, at least some times, use the word "Hindu" as a
synonym for "Indian". In this sense of the term, I am certainly a
"Hindu" because I do not deny being an Indian. However, I do not think
that this a proper use of the term "Hindu". There are many Indians
such as Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians as well as
rationalists, humanists and atheists who do not call themselves
"Hindu" and also do not like to be described as such. It is certainly
not fair to convert them into Hinduism by giving an elastic definition
of the term "Hindu". Besides, it is also not advisable to use the word
"Hindu" in this sense from the point of view of clarity. The word
"Hindu" may have been used in the beginning as a synonym for
"Indian" [1], but, at present, the word is used for people with
certain definite religious beliefs. The word "Hindu" belongs to the
category of words like "Muslim", "Christian", "Buddhist" and "Jain"
and not to the category of words like "American", "British",
"Australian", "Chinese" or "Japanese". There are, in fact, many
Indians who are not Hindus, and on the other hand, there are many
Hindus who are not Indians , for example, those who are citizens of
Nepal, Sri Lanka and some other countries.

In the religious sense, the word, "Hindu" is often used broadly to
include Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in addition to those who are
described as "Hindu" in this most restricted sense of the term, that
is, the adherents of Vedic or Brahmin religion. For example, the
expression "Hindu" is used in the Hindu law not only for those who are
Hindu by religion but also for persons who are Buddhists, Jains and
Sikhs by religion. This, again, is too broad a definition of "Hindu".
If we consistently use the word "Hindu" in this sense, we will have to
say that Japan is a Hindu country!

The above definition of "Hindu" is clearly inadequate from a
philosophical point of view. Buddhism and Jainism, for instance,
explicitly reject the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas and
the system of varna-vyavastha, which are fundamental to Hinduism, that
is, if the term "Hinduism" is used in its most restricted sense.
Therefore, clubbing together Buddhists and Jains or even Sikhs with
those who believe in the infallibility of the Vedas and subscribe to
the varna-vyavastha is nothing but an invitation to confusion.

Though I agree with Buddhism in its rejection of god, soul,
infallibility of the Vedas and the varna-vyavastha, still I am not a
Hindu even in this broad sense of the term "Hindu", because as a
rationalist and humanist I reject all religions including Buddhism,
Jainism and Sikhism. However, in this essay I am concerned with
explaining why I am not a Hindu in the most appropriate sense of the
term "Hindu", that is, the sense in which a person is a Hindu if his
religion is Hinduism in the restricted sense of the term " Hinduism".
In this restricted sense of "Hinduism", Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism
are excluded from its scope. I also maintain that this is, at present,
probably the most popular sense of the term, and every body should, in
the interest of clarity, confine its use, as far as possible, to this
sense only, at least in philosophical discourse.

Radhakrishnan, for example, has used the term "Hindu" and "Hinduism"
in this restricted sense when he says in his The Hindu View of Life
that, "The chief sacred scriptures of Hindus, the Vedas register the
intuitions of the perfected souls." [2] Or, when he says that
"Hinduism is the religion not only of the Vedas but of the Epics and
the Puranas." [3]

Basic Beliefs of Hinduism
Gandhi, too, has used the term "Hindu" in this restricted sense, when
writing in Young India in October, 1921, he says:

I call myself a sanatani Hindu, because,

I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that goes
by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars and
rebirth.
I believe in the Varnashram dharma in a sense in my opinion strictly
Vedic, but not in its present popular and crude sense.
I believe in the protection of the cow in its much larger sense than
the popular.
I do not disbelieve in idol-worship. [4]

One may be tempted to ask, at this point, whether all the beliefs
listed by Gandhi are really fundamental to Hinduism. In my opinion,
(I) the belief in the authenticity of the Vedas and (II) the belief in
the varnashram dharma are more basic to Hinduism than the belief in
cow-protection and idol-worship. [5] Though it cannot be denied that,
in spite of attempts by reformers like Kabir, Rammohan Roy and
Dayanand Saraswati, idol-worship is still practiced widely by the
Hindu masses, and there is, at present, a taboo on eating beef among a
large number of Hindus. In any case, I am in a position to establish
the fact of my not being a Hindu by asserting the contradictory of
each of the above statements made by Gandhi:

In other words, I assert that I am not a Hindu, because,

I do not believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all
that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in avatars
and rebirth.
I do not believe in the varnashram dharma or varna-vyavastha either in
the sense in which it is explained in Hindu dharma shastras like
Manusmriti or in the so-called Vedic sense.
I do not believe in the Hindu taboo of not eating beef.
I disbelieve in idol-worship.

However, while explaining why I am not a Hindu, I will concentrate
mainly on (I) the belief in the authenticity of the Vedas, and (II)
the varnashram dharma , which I consider more fundamental to Hinduism.
Besides, in the concluding section of the essay, I will briefly
discuss moksha, which is regarded as the highest end of life in
Hinduism, and some other Hindu doctrines like karmavada and
avatarvada.

The infallibility of the Vedas

First of all, let me explain what do I mean by saying that "I do not
believe in the Vedas", and why I do not do so.

The schools of ancient Indian thought are generally classified by
orthodox Hindu thinkers into two broad categories, namely, orthodox
( astika) and heterodox ( nastika). The six main Hindu systems of
thought -- Mimamsa, Vedanta, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika --
are regarded as orthodox ( astika), not because they believe in the
existence of god, but because they accept the authority of the Vedas.
[6]

Out of the six orthodox systems of Hindu thought, Nyaya system is
primarily concerned with the conditions of correct thinking and the
means of acquiring true knowledge. According to Nyaya system, there
are four distinct and separate sources of knowledge, namely, (i)
perception (ii) inference (iii) comparison, and (iv) testimony or
shabda.

Shabda, which is defined in the Nyaya system as "valid verbal
testimony" is further classified into (i) the scriptural ( vaidika),
and (ii) the secular ( laukika). Vaidika or scriptural testimony is
believed to be the word of god, and therefore, it is regarded as
perfect and infallible .[7]

Mimamsa or Purva Mimamsa, another orthodox Hindu system is "the
outcome of the ritualistic side of the vedic culture". However, in its
attempt to justify the authority of the Vedas, Mimamsa elaborately
discusses different sources of valid knowledge. Naturally enough,
among the various "sources of valid knowledge", Mimamsa pays greatest
attention to testimony or authority, which, too, is regarded by it as
a valid source of knowledge. There are, according to Mimamsa, two
kinds of authority -- personal ( paurusheya) and impersonal
( apaurusheya). The authority of the Vedas is regarded by Mimamsa as
impersonal. [8]

As mentioned earlier, according to Nyaya, the authority of the Vedas
is derived from their being the words of god. But Mimamsa, which does
not believe in the existence of god, declares that the Vedas like the
world, are eternal. They are not the work of any person, human or
divine. The infallibility of the authority of the Vedas, according to
Mimamsa, rests on the "fact" that they are not vitiated by any defect
to which the work of imperfect persons is liable. [9]

Thus, orthodox Hindu schools like Nyaya and Mimamsa regard the
testimony of the Vedas as infallible, though they give different
reasons for doing so. Well-known orthodox Hindu theologians like
Shankar and Ramanuja believed in the authority of the Vedas.
Manusmriti, too, upholds the infallibility of the Vedas. As pointed
out by S.N.Dasgupta, "The validity and authority of the Vedas were
acknowledged by all Hindu writers and they had wordy battles over it
with the Buddhists who denied it." [10]

The point worth noting is that though popularly Hinduism is a theistic
religion, it is not essential to believe in the existence of god for
being an orthodox Hindu -- belief in the authority of the Vedas is
more important.

When I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", what I mean is that I do
not regard the testimony of the Vedas as a valid source of knowledge.
In other words when I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", I do not
mean that each and every proposition contained in the Vedas is false.
It is quite possible that one may find a few true statements in the
Vedas after great amount of patient research. But I assert that the
truth or the falsity of a proposition is logically independent of its
being contained or not contained in the Vedas. A proposition is true
if there is a correspondence between the belief expressed by it and
the facts. Otherwise, it is false. So, a proposition contained in the
Vedas might be true, that is, if there is a correspondence between the
belief expressed by it and the facts, but it is, I insist, not true
because it is contained in the Vedas. I categorically reject as
invalid every argument of the form: "The proposition P is contained in
the Vedas. Therefore, the proposition P is true".

Besides, I also assert that some propositions contained in the Vedas
are certainly false. For example, according to Purusha-Sukta of Rig
Veda , Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras originated
respectively from the mouth, hands, thighs and feet of the purusha or
the creator. I categorically reject this statement as false. I
maintain that varna-vyavastha is a man-made social institution and it
has nothing to do with the alleged creator of this world.

I also reject both the reasons put forward in support of the
infallibility of the Vedas. I neither regard them to be "the words of
god" nor I consider them to be eternal and impersonal. I believe that
Vedas were conceived, spoken and written by human beings. The question
of their being "words of god" simply does not arise, because there are
no good reasons for believing in the existence of god. The existence
of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent god is totally
inconsistent with the presence of suffering and evil in this world. It
is impossible for god to exist. [11]

Similarly, Vedas could not have come into existence before human
beings appeared on this earth, and before Sanskrit language came into
existence. And there are no good reasons for believing that Sanskrit
language came into existence even before human beings appeared on this
earth!

As far as Gandhi is concerned, though he liked to describe himself as
a sanatani Hindu, he was, in fact, not a completely orthodox Hindu.
For example, in the article quoted earlier in this essay Gandhi goes
on to add, "I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. I
believe the Bible, the Koran, and the Zend-Avesta to be as much
divinely inspired as the Vedas. My belief in the Hindu scriptures does
not require me to accept every word and every verse as divinely
inspired, I decline to be bound by any interpretation, however learned
in may be, if it is repugnant to reason or moral sense. "[12](emphasis
mine)

I seriously doubt that this position will be acceptable to an orthodox
Hindu. In fact, Gandhi's position comes very close to that of
rationalists and humanists when he says that "I decline to be bound by
any interpretation however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to
reason and moral sense". However, since he refused to say in so many
words that he did not believe in the authority of the Vedas, Gandhi
may be described, in my opinion, as a liberal Hindu with an eclectic
approach towards religion. On the other hand, my position is radically
different from that of Gandhi, because I do not consider either the
Vedas or the Bible, the Koran and Zend-Avesta or any other book to be
divinely inspired.

Varna-vyavastha

Before discussing varna-vyavastha or varnashram dharma, let me clarify
in the very beginning that I am not interested in giving my own
interpretation of what varna-vyavastha is or ought to be in its ideal
form. I am interested, firstly, in giving an objective exposition of
varna-vyavastha as contained in recognized Hindu scriptures like Vedas
and dharmashastras like Manusmriti; and secondly, in mentioning my
reasons for rejecting varna-vyavastha. In doing so I will concentrate
on the chaturvarnya (four-fold division of society) aspect of varna-
vyavastha.

We have already noted that the first reference to varna (class based
on birth or caste) is to be found in the Purusha-Sukta of the Rig
Veda . The reference to the four ashrams or stages of life, namely,
Brahmcharya, Garhastya, Vanprashta and Sanyas is to be found in the
Upanishads. These are, in their turn, related to the four purusarthas
or ends of life, namely, dharma (duty), artha (wealth), kama
(satisfaction of sensual desires) and moksha (liberation). Out of
these, the Upanishads attach maximum value to sanyas ashram and moksha
purusartha, which is regarded as the highest end of life. [13]

The system of varnashram dharma is upheld by popular Hindu scriptures
like Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagvat-Gita. In Ramayana, for example,
Ram kills Shambuka simply because he was performing tapasya (ascetic
exercises) which he was not supposed to do as he was a Shudra by
birth. [14]

Similarly, in Mahabharata, Dronacharya refuses to teach archery to
Eklavya, because he was not a Kshatriya by birth. When Eklavya,
treating Drona as his notional guru, learns archery on his own, Drona
makes him cut his right thumb as gurudakshina (gift for the teacher)
so that he may not become a better archer than his favorite Kshatriya
student Arjuna!

The much-glorified Bhagvat-Gita, too, favors varna-vyavastha.[15] When
Arjuna refuses to fight, one of his main worries was that the war
would lead to the birth of varna-sankaras or offspring from
intermixing of different varnas and the consequent "downfall" of the
family. [16] On the other hand, Krishna tries to motivate Arjuna to
fight by saying that it was his varna-dharma (caste-duty) to do so
because he was a Kshatriya. In fact, Krishna goes to the extent of
claiming that the four varnas were created by him only. [17] Thus,
Arjuna's main problem was being born a Kshatriya. Had he been a
Brahmin or a Vaishya or a Shudra by birth, he would have been spared
the trouble of fighting a destructive war. Even the much-applauded
doctrine of niskama karma is nothing but an exhortation to faithfully
perform one's varnashram dharma in a disinterested manner. [18]

The celebrated orthodox Hindu theologian Shankar, too, was a supporter
of varna-vyavastha. According to him, Shudras are not entitled to
philosophical knowledge. [19] However, the most elaborate exposition
of varnashram dharma is to be found in Manusmriti, an important
dharmashastra of Hindus. Let us turn to it in order to have a close
look at the varna-vyavastha.

Manusmriti

In the very first chapter of Manusmriti, it is clearly stated that
Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras were created by Brahma
(creator of this world) from his mouth, hands, thighs and feet
respectively. [20]

Manu claims that the same Brahma, who created this world, also created
Manusmriti and taught it to him. [21]

The duties of the different varnas are also mentioned in the
Manusmriti. The Brahmins were created for teaching, studying,
performing yajnas (ceremonial sacrifices), getting yajnas performed,
giving and accepting dan (gifts).[22] The Kshatriyas were created for
protecting the citizens, giving gifts, getting yajnas performed and
studying. [23] The Vaishyas were created for protecting animals,
giving gifts, getting yajnas performed, studying, trading, lending
money on interest and doing agricultural work. [24] The Shudras were
created by Brahma for serving Brahmins and the other two varnas
without being critical of them. [25]

It is interesting to note that studying, getting yajnas performed and
giving gifts or charity are common duties of Brahmins, Kshatriyas and
Vaishyas; whereas teaching, accepting gifts and performing yajnas are
reserved exclusively for Brahmins. The Shudras, of course, are denied
the rights to study, getting yajnas performed by Brahmins or even
giving gifts to them.

Manusmriti further states that having originated from the mouth of
Brahma, being elder and being the repository of the Vedas; Brahmins
are the masters of the entire universe. [26] Besides, Brahmins alone
act as a sort of post office for transmitting food to the gods and the
dead, that is to say, the gods and the dead eat food through the
mouths of Brahmins (apparently because they do not have mouths of
their own). Therefore, no one can be superior to Brahmins.[27] All
others are said to enjoy everything owing to the Brahmins' mercy.[28]
The Manusmriti clearly states that Brahmins alone are entitled to
teach this dharmashastra and none else. [29]

Manusmriti refers to the Vedas, which are to be regarded as the main
valid source of knowledge about dharma, as shruti and to
dharmashastras as smriti. No one is to argue critically about them
because religion has originated from them. [30] Any nastika (non-
believer) or critic of the Vedas, who "insults" them on the basis of
logic, is worthy of being socially boycotted by "noble" persons. [31]

In short, the main features of chaturvarnya as elaborated in the
Manusmriti are as follows:

1. Division of Hindu society into four varnas on the basis of birth.
Out of these only the first three, namely , Brahmins , Kshatriya and
Vaishya, who are collectively known as dwija (twice-born) are entitled
to upanayan and the study of the Vedas. Shudras as well as women of
dwija varnas are denied the right to study.

2. Assigning different duties and occupations for different varnas.
This is to be enforced strictly by the king. [32] According to
Manusmriti, if a person of lower caste adopts the occupation of a
higher caste, the king ought to deprive him of all his property and
expel him from his kingdom. [33]

3. Treating Brahmins as superior and other varnas, namely, Kshatriya,
Vaishya and Shudra as inferior to him in descending order with the
Shudra occupying the bottom of the hierarchy. A Brahmin is to be
treated as god and respected even if he is ignorant. Even a hundred-
year old Kshatriya is to treat a ten year old Brahmin as his father.
[34] Brahmin alone is entitled to teach. If a Shudra dares to give
moral lessons to a Brahmin, the king is to get him punished by pouring
hot oil in his ear and mouth. [35] Similarly, if a Shudra occupies the
same seat as a Brahmin, he is to be punished by branding his waist
(with hot rod) or getting his buttocks cut! [36]

4. Treating women as unequal. Women, that is, even women belonging to
Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya varna are not entitled to upanayan and
the study of the Vedas. For them, marriage is equivalent to upanayan
and service of their husbands is equivalent to the study of the Vedas
in the gurukul.[37] Even if the husband is morally degraded, engaged
in an affair with another woman and is devoid of knowledge and other
qualities, the wife must treat him like a god. [38] A widower is
allowed to remarry but a widow is not. [39] Besides, women are not
considered fit for being free and independent. They are to be
protected in their childhood by father, in youth by husband and in old
age by son. [40] They should never be allowed by their guardians to
act independently. [41] A woman must never do anything even inside her
home without the consent of her father, husband and son respectively.
[42] She must remain in control of her father in childhood, of husband
in youth and of son after the death of her husband. [43]

5. Treating different varnas as unequal for legal purposes. The Hindu
law as codified by Manu is based on the principle of inequality. The
punishment for a particular crime is not same for all varnas. In fact,
the punishment varies depending on the varna of the victim as well as
the varna of the person committing the crime. For the same crime, the
Brahmin is to be given a mild punishment, whereas the Shudra is to
given the harshest punishment of all. Similarly, if the victim of a
crime is a Shudra, the punishment is mild, and the punishment is harsh
in case the victim is a Brahmin. For example, if a Brahmin is awarded
death sentence, it is sufficient to shave his head, but Kshatriya,
Vaishya and Shudra are to actually die. [44] If a Kshatriya, a
Vaishya, or a Shudra repeatedly gives false evidence in the court, he
is to be punished and expelled from the kingdom, whereas the Brahmin
is not to be punished, he is to be only expelled. [45] If a person has
sexual intercourse with a consenting women of his own varna, he is not
to be punished. [46] But if a person of lower varna has sexual
intercourse with a woman of higher varna, with or without her consent,
he is to be killed. [47] If a Brahmin forces a dwija to work for him,
he is to be punished. [48] But if a Brahmin forces a Shudra to work
for him, whether by making or not making payments to him, he is not to
be punished, because Shudras have been created only for serving
Brahmins.[49] If a Brahmin abuses a Shudra, he is to be fined mildly,
[50] but if a Shudra abuses a Brahmin, he is to be killed. [51] On the
other hand, even if a Brahmin kills a Shudra, he is merely to perform
penance by killing a cat, frog, owl or crow, etc. [52] Thus a Shudra
is to be killed for abusing a Brahmin, whereas a Brahmin is to be let
off lightly even if he kills a Shudra. Such is the unequal justice of
Manusmriti.

In fact, this system of graded inequality seems to be the very essence
of the varna-vyavastha. Whether it is the choice of names, [53] or the
manner of greeting, [54] or the mode of entertaining guests, [55] or
the method of administering oath in the court, [56] or the process of
taking out the funeral procession, [57] at each and every step in
life, from birth to death, this system of graded inequality is to be
applied and observed. Manu does not even spare the rates of interest
on loan. For borrowing the same amount, Kshatriya has to pay more as
interest than Brahmin, Vaishya more than Kshatriya and the poor Shudra
has to pay the maximum amount as interest! [58]

6. Prohibiting inter-marriage between different varnas. According to
Manusmriti, a dwija ought to marry a woman of his own varna.[59] A
woman of the same varna is considered best for the first marriage.
However, a dwija may take a woman of inferior varna as his second wife
if he is overcome by sexual passion. [60] But Manu strongly
disapproves of Brahmins and Kshatriyas taking a Shudra woman even as
their second wife. They become Shudra if they do so. [61]

7. Supporting untouchability is also a part of the scheme of social
stratification outlined in the Manusmriti. Manu clearly mentions that
Brahmin, Kshatriya and Vaishya, collectively known as dwija and the
Shudras are the four varnas. There is no fifth varna.[62] He explains
the origin of other castes by saying that they are varna-sankara
castes, that is to say, castes originating due to the intermixture of
different varnas, both in anuloma (upper varna male and lower varna
female) and pratiloma (lower varna male and upper varna female)
manner. [63] For example, Nishad caste is said to have originated from
anuloma relationship between Brahmin male and Shudra female,[64]
whereas C handala caste is said to be owing its origin to pratiloma
relationship between Shudra male and Brahmin female. [65]

Manu seems to be disapproving of pratiloma relationship more than the
anuloma, because he describes C handalas as the lowest of the low
castes. [66]

Let us see what Manusmriti, has to say about the C handala. The
Chandala, says Manusmriti, must not ever reside inside the village.
While doing their work, they must reside outside the village, at
cremation ground, on mountains or in groves. They are not entitled to
keep cows or horses, etc., as pet animals. They may keep dogs and
donkeys. They are to wear shrouds. They are to eat in broken utensils.
They are to use ornaments of iron, not of gold. They must keep moving
from one place to another, not residing at the same place for a long
duration. [67] They must not move around in villages and cities in
night hours. They may enter the villages and cities in daytime, with
king's permission, wearing special symbols (to enable identification),
and take away unclaimed dead bodies. [68]

Moreover, how is the "religious" person to deal with the Chandala? He
must not have any social intercourse (marriage, interdining, etc.)
with them. He must not talk to or even see them! [69] He may ask
servants (apparently Shudras) to give them food in broken utensils.
[70]

8. Granting divine and religious sanction to varna-vyavastha. Manu
gives divine and religious sanction to the varna-vyavastha by claiming
divine origin for the varnas as well as for the Manusmriti and
demanding unquestioning obedience of it.

So, that completes my exposition of the varna-vyavastha. I want to
emphasize in particular that my exposition does not contain any
exaggeration at all. The reader may check each and every statement by
comparing with the original Manusmriti in order to satisfy himself or
herself. I cannot help if the system is so unjust and so out of tune
with out existing values that even an objective exposition reads like
a severe condemnation. Nevertheless, I will now turn to my reasons for
rejecting varna-vyavastha: I reject varna-vyavastha because it is
irrational, unjust and undemocratic, being opposed to the democratic
and human values of liberty, equality and fraternity.

Criticism of varna-vyavastha
The varna-vyavastha is opposed to the value of liberty as it denies
the freedom to choose one's occupation and marriage partner to one and
all. Everyone must join the occupation of his varna and must marry
within his varna. Similarly, it denies the freedom to study to the
Shudras and woman in particular. Even the dwija must study the Vedas
before he studies anything else. Otherwise, he becomes a Shudra.[71]
(Incidentally, according to Manusmriti, there are several ways by
which a Brahmin or dwija may become a Shudra but there is no way by
which a Shudra may become a Brahmin. A Shudra must always remain a
Shudra.)[72]

What is worse, the Chandala is even denied the freedom to reside at a
place of his choice or to wear clothes and ornaments of his choice. He
is not even free to keep pet animals of his choice.

The conflict between varna-vyavastha and the value of equality is more
than obvious. As I mentioned earlier, the system of graded inequality
seems to be the very essence of varna-vyavastha. It denies equal
respect to all in society. It denies equality before law. It denies
equal access to marriage partners. It denies equal access to jobs. The
occupation of teachers and priests, for example, is reserved
exclusively for Brahmins. Finally, it also denies equal access to
education and knowledge.

A Brahmin, according to Manu, must not teach the Shudra and woman even
if he dies with his knowledge without imparting it to anybody. [73] On
the other hand, if anyone studies the Vedas on his own he or she will
go straight to hell. [74] In other words, cent percent reservations
for dwija males in the sphere of education.

The varna-vyavastha is most unfair to the Shudras and the
untouchables. They are denied respect, knowledge, power and wealth.
They are denied access to occupations considered respectable, just as
they are denied access to men and women of upper varnas for marriage.
The Shudras are virtually reduced to being slaves of the Brahmins in
particular and the dwijas in general, whereas the untouchables are
regarded as outcast -- beyond the pale of the society. The women are
generally treated as sexual objects and as unfit for being independent
and free.

As far as fraternity is considered, we must not expect it to exist in
a society, which is so unequal and unjust. A Shudra's waist is to be
branded or his buttocks are to be cut only because he occupies the
same seat as the Brahmin. The "religious" are not to talk or even look
at a Chandala. Inter-marriage is prohibited. Manu seems to be most
eager to prevent inter-mixing of the varnas. Thus, the Hindu social
order is based on the isolation and exclusiveness of the varnas.

The Manusmriti not only outlines a totally undemocratic and unjust
social system but also gives divine, religious sanction to this man-
made social institution of chaturvarnya. Some Hindus, including
apparently learned "thinkers" and writers, smugly wax eloquent about
Hinduism being the most tolerant and liberal religion of the world.

Is there any other religion, which sanctions slavery and
untouchability? Is there any other religion in which only persons born
in a particular caste ( Brahmin) are entitled to become priests?

Slavery is not peculiar to India or to Hinduism, but carrying it to
the extremes of untouchability, and granting it divine and religious
sanction is peculiar to Hinduism.

Similarly, some Hindus may be tolerant, just as some of them are
intolerant, but Hinduism or Hindu religion is not tolerant at all,
either socially or intellectually. Manusmriti, for example, clearly
says that anybody who argues critically and logically about
dharmashastras ought to be ostracized. [75] Non-believers, including
freethinkers, rationalists and Buddhists, are not to be entertained
respectfully as guests; though, mercifully, they may be given food.
[76] The families of non-believers are destroyed sooner than later
according to Manu. [77] A state with a large number of Shudras and
nastikas soon meets its destruction. [78] Manusmriti is full of
abusive epithets for freethinkers and non-believers. The unorthodox
( nastikas) are sometimes equated with the Shudras, sometimes with the
Chandalas, sometimes with thieves and sometimes with lunatics! [79]
Such is the generosity of Hindu dharma.

Apologies for varna-vyavastha

Let me now consider what the apologists of varna-vyavastha have to say
in its defense.

A standard defense of varna-vyavastha is to say that it is a system of
division of labor. It is easy to grant that division of labor is
essential for any complex society, but it is equally easy to see that
varna-vyavastha is not a system of division of labor based on aptitude
and capability. It is a system of division of labor based on birth .
Besides, it has other associated features such as feeling of
superiority and inferiority, inequality before law, denial of equal
access to knowledge and prohibition against inter-marriage.

What have these features to do with the division of labor?

Division of labor is found in all societies, but varna-vyavastha is
not. Thus, trying to justify varna-vyavastha as division of labor is a
futile exercise.

Another standard defense of the varna-vyavastha is to say that the
system was originally based on aptitude and capability. Whether it was
actually ever so is a subject for historical research. Most probably,
the racial theory of the origin of castes is true. However, even if we
grant for the sake of argument that the varna-vyavastha was originally
based on aptitude and capability, how does it help? We cannot say that
because the system was originally, some time in remote past, based on
aptitude and capability; therefore we ought to gladly suffer the
present system based on birth. It hardly makes any sense at all!

In any case, Manusmriti was most probably written between200 BC and
200 AD [80] and the system as outlined in it is totally based on
birth. Gautam Buddha, who lived in sixth century BC, challenged the
infallibility of the Vedas as well as the varna-vyavastha. There are
several passages in Tripitaka, mainly in Digha Nikaya and Majhima
Nikaya which are "directed against the claims of the Brahmans to be of
different origin from the rest of humanity, born from the mouth of
Brahma, having a hereditary prerogative to teach, guide and
spiritually govern the rest of the society." [81] In Majhima Nikaya
Buddha is quoted as refuting varna-vyavastha on several occasions.
According to Buddha, it is unreasonable to decide one's place and
functions in society on the basis of one's birth in a caste. Buddha is
also quoted as insisting that in the eyes of the law all persons ought
to be treated as equal, irrespective of the caste or varna in which he
or she is born. [82] Thus, it is obvious that even if the system of
varna-vyavastha ever existed in its ideal form -- which is doubtful --
it had already degenerated by the time of Buddha, that is, about 2500
years back.

The most blatant defense of varna-vyavastha, however, is to say that
human beings are born unequal, and, therefore, it is natural and
normal for children to join the occupation of their fathers.
Surprisingly and sadly, no less a person than Gandhi defended varna-
vyavastha in a similar manner.

To quote Gandhi: "I believe that every man is born in the world with
certain natural tendencies. Every person is born with certain definite
limitations which he cannot overcome. From a careful observation of
those limitations the law of varna was deduced. It establishes certain
spheres of action for certain people with certain tendencies. This
avoided all unworthy competition. Whilst recognizing limitations, the
law of varna admitted of no distinction of high and low; on the one
hand it guaranteed to each the fruits of his labors and on the other
it prevented him from pressing upon his neighbor. This great law has
been degraded and fallen into disrepute. But my conviction is that an
ideal social order will only be evolved when the implications of this
law are fully understood and given effect to". [83]

Again, "I regard Varnashrama as a healthy division of work based on
birth. The present ideas of caste are a perversion of the original.
There is no question with me of superiority or inferiority. It is
purely a question of duty. I have indeed stated that varna is based on
birth. But I have also said that it is possible for a shudra, for
instance, to become a vaishya. But in order to perform the duty of
vaishya he does not need the label of a vaishya. He who performs the
duty of a brahman will easily become one in the next
incarnation." [84]

So, varna-vyavastha, according to Gandhi, is a "healthy division of
work based on birth", which takes into account the "natural
tendencies" of human beings and avoids "unworthy competition."

This apparently plausible defense of varna-vyavastha is, in fact, most
unscientific. It is a well-known and scientifically verified fact that
acquired characteristics are not inherited biologically, only genetic
qualities are transmitted from one generation to another. For
instance, carpentry is an acquired characteristic; just as knowledge
of philosophy is an acquired quality. Neither a carpenter's son or
daughter is born with the knowledge of carpentry, nor is a
philosopher's daughter or son born with the knowledge of philosophy.
These are acquired characteristics and, therefore, they cannot be
inherited biologically. If sometimes, though not always, a carpenter's
son becomes a good carpenter or a philosopher's daughter acquires a
good knowledge of philosophy, without being formally initiated into
these disciplines, it is not because they are born with the required
knowledge, but only because of the favorable environment at home,
which enables them to acquire these characteristics. The result could
be different if their places were to be interchanged.

One may say that though the knowledge of carpentry of philosophy in
not inherited biologically, the mental qualities enabling one to
acquire the requisite knowledge is inherited. Some physical and mental
qualities are, no doubt, inherited but this does not mean that parents
and their children are always identical in physical or mental
qualities. It is a well known fact -- anybody can verify this by
careful observation -- that due to different permutations and
combinations of chromosomes and genes offspring of same parents are
not always identical to one another or to their parents. More often
than not, they are different. For instance, one son or daughter of
same parents may be tall and another short. The colors of skin, hair
and eyes may differ likewise. What is true of physical characteristics
is equally true of mental qualities. Thus, a child may or may not have
the mental characteristics, which his father has.

Therefore, it is totally unscientific to forcefully restrict children
to the occupations of their forefathers.

It is true that all human beings are not equal in the sense of being
identical in physical or mental qualities. But it does not follow from
this that they ought to be denied equal opportunity to join a vocation
of their choice or that they ought to be denied equality before law or
equal respect as human beings in the society.

As for "unworthy" competition, how do we know that the competition is
unworthy unless all are, to begin with, given equal opportunity? Take
the example of Gandhi himself. He was a bania by caste. Yet, in spite
of some serious aberrations such as supporting varna-vyavastha based
on birth and linking politics with religion, he performed fairly well
in the role of a national leader. It would have been a great loss for
the nation if in the name of avoiding "unworthy" competition in
politics, Gandhi would have been confined to running a grocery shop.
Similarly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was born in an "untouchable" caste, but
he played an important role in the drafting of the democratic
constitution of independent India. He also taught in a college for
some time. To use the terminology of varna-vyavastha, he ably
performed the work of a Brahmin.

Is it possible to imagine how many Ambedkars we may have lost by now
owing to the restrictive varna-vyavastha?

As we have noted earlier, varna-vyavastha is a closed system of social
stratification without any scope for upward social mobility. To quote
M. Haralambos, author of a textbook on sociology, "A person belongs to
his parents jati and automatically follows the occupation of the jati
into which he was born. Thus no matter what the biologically based
aptitude and capacities of an untouchable, there is no way he can
become a Brahmin. Unless it is assumed that superior genes are
permanently located in the Brahmin caste, and there is no evidence
that this is the case, then there is probably no relationship between
genetically based and socially created inequality in traditional Hindu
society." [85]

Returning to Gandhi, though Gandhi was opposed to untouchability and
caste, he did not carry his opposition to its logical conclusion.
Inconsistently enough, he continued to support the varna-vyavastha
based on birth. At one stage, he even supported restrictions on
interdining and intermarriage. As he wrote in Young India in 1921,
"Hinduism does most emphatically discourage interdining and
intermarriage between divisions... It is no part of a Hindu's duty to
dine with his son. And by restricting his choice of bride to a
particular group, he exercises rare self-restraint. Prohibition
against intermarriages and interdining is essential for the rapid
evolution of the soul. "[86] (emphasis mine)

Later Gandhi moved away from these orthodox ideas, and started
supporting intercaste marriages. Finally in 1946, he refused to
solemnize any marriage at Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties
was an untouchable. [87] May be he would also have given up varna-
vyavastha if he had lived longer. That, however, is in the realm of
imagination, the fact is that Gandhi supported varna-vyavastha. It is
worth noting that he invented his own conception of varna-vyavastha,
which, according to him, had nothing to do with the feeling of
superiority and inferiority or with prohibition against intermarriage.
We find here in Gandhi a quaint mixture of conservatism and
reformism.

I would like to dispose of one last objection before concluding this
section. One may say that the Hindu law at present is quite different
from what Manu desired, and presently Hindus in general do not follow
Manu in totality. This is true. The Hindu law at present, for
instance, allows inter-caste marriage and prohibits bigamy and child
marriage. It permits divorce. It also allows widow remarriage and
grants equal rights to daughters in father's property. Nevertheless,
there seems to be a gap between the progressive Hindu law and the
conservative social practices of the Hindus. A majority of Hindu
marriages are still within the caste and very few Hindu women actually
claim or get a share in father's property.

The Indian constitution has rightly made special provisions, such as
reservations in services for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and
other socially and educationally backward classes, to enable them to
enter occupations and positions of power, which had been traditionally
denied to them. No doubt, some upper caste liberal Hindus, too,
support the policy of reservation. But, by and large, the Hindu upper
castes are far from fully reconciled to this progressive step as is
evident from violent and aggressive anti-reservation agitation
spearheaded by upper caste students from time to time. This kind of
reactionary agitation aimed at preserving the present dominance of
upper castes in education and the services enjoys considerable support
and sympathy in the upper caste dominated media as well as the
academia.

On the whole, the Hindu society is yet to fully exorcise the ghost of
Manu. Caste based on birth and untouchability still exist in the Hindu
society, in spite of the fact that untouchability has been abolished
by the Indian constitution. The distribution of education, power and
wealth continues to be uneven in the Hindu society, with the dwijas
being on the top and the Shudras and untouchables being at the bottom.
Teaching is no more an exclusive preserve of Brahmins, but the
occupation of Hindu priests is still fully reserved for Brahmins,
though this fact does not arouse the ire of our fervent anti-
reservationists.

Moksha, Karmavada and Avatarvada

Moksha is traditionally regarded as the highest end of life in Hindu
religion. The "endless cycle of birth and death" is considered a
bondage from which one must attain liberation, that is moksha or
mukti.

This whole concept of bondage and liberation is based on the unproved
assumption of life after death, and the existence of soul ( atma)
which continues to exist apart from the body even after death. In the
famous words of Gita, the soul changes bodies just as human beings
change clothes. [88]

Now, there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of soul
or life after death or rebirth. These beliefs are not at all supported
by incontrovertible scientific evidence. According to S.N. Dasgupta,
"there has seldom been before or after Buddha any serious attempt to
prove or disprove the doctrine of rebirth. The attempts to prove the
doctrine of rebirth in the Hindu philosophical works such as Nyaya,
etc. are slight and inadequate." [89]

However, even before Buddha, Lokayat had disproved the existence of
soul, life after death, rebirth, heaven and hell on an empirical
basis, as these things are never perceived. [90]

Thus, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to
believe that each one of us has got one and only one life . Once a
person is dead, he is dead for ever. Never to be reborn. Mind,
consciousness, memory and life cannot outlast the destruction of brain
and body. This is the harsh truth; howsoever we may dislike it.

The belief in soul seems to have originated from primitive animism.
[91] If this belief continues to persist, in spite of total lack of
evidence in its support, it is only because of human beings' inability
to come to terms with, or to squarely face, the reality of death. One
likes to believe that one's near and dear ones, who are dead and
finished forever, actually continue to live in some other imaginary
world, and that they will also be reborn one day. One draws comfort
from the thought that one will not die even after death, and continue
to live in some other form. It is paradoxical that, first, the fear of
death and love of life makes one readily accept the belief in the
immortality and rebirth of soul without adequate evidence, and, then,
getting rid of this alleged cycle of birth and death itself becomes
the topmost religious aim! [92]

The problem of getting "released" from the alleged cycle of birth and
death is a pseudo-problem (in the sense that one is trying to get rid
of something which simply does not exist) and moksha is an imaginary
ideal which has nothing to do with the reality. Instead of running
after the imaginary ideal of moksha, it is far better to concentrate
on improving and living well this one and only life, which we have.

Mimamsa, which is an orthodox Hindu school of thought, considers
attainment of heaven ( swarga), instead of moksha, as the highest end
of life. References to heaven and hell are also to be found in the
Manusmriti. The belief in heaven is fairly widespread at popular
level. However, the ideal of the attainment of heaven, too, is based
on unproved assumptions, like life after death and the existence of
heaven, and, therefore, it cannot be accepted.

Another related doctrine is the Hindu belief in karmavada or the so-
called law of karma. According to this doctrine, every human being
gets the fruits of his actions either in the present or in some future
life. Whatever a human being is in his present life is the result of
his own actions in the past life or lives.

This, again, is a totally unverified and unverifiable doctrine based
on the assumption of the "cycle of birth and death". It is only a
convenient tool for explaining away the perceived inequality in human
society. The idea of karma is found in Buddhism and Jainism as well.
However, these religions do not support varna-vyavastha. But in
Hinduism the doctrine of karma, along with the idea of god, has been
used for providing ideological support to the unjust varna-vyavastha
and for making it appear just and fair. In Hinduism the so-called law
of karma merely serves the purpose of legitimizing the unjust varna-
vyavastha by making the Shudras and the "untouchables" meekly accept
their degrading position as a "result of their own deeds" in imaginary
past lives, and by assuring them "better" birth in "next life" if they
faithfully perform their varna-dharma in their present lives. [93] In
this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this man-
made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past
and future lives.

Lastly, I come to the Hindu doctrine of avatarvada. According to this
doctrine, whenever religion is threatened in this world, god takes
birth as an avatar to put things back into order. Ram and Krishna, for
example, are popularly regarded as avatars by the Hindus.

Belief in avatarvada, too, is logically unjustifiable and merely makes
one run away from one's own responsibilities. Instead of making
efforts to improve their own condition, those who believe in
avatarvada keep waiting for an avatar to take birth. Since god does
not exist, there is no question of his being born on this earth as an
avatar. (Let me add here that I also do not believe in the truth of
statements like "Jesus is the son of god" or "Mohammed is the
messenger of god".)

Not only I do not regard Ram or Krishna (or anyone else) as an avatar
of god, I also do not regard them as ideal personalities. Ram, as
mentioned earlier, was on upholder, of the varna-vyavastha. His cruel
behavior with Sita, after fighting a destructive war with Ravana to
get her released, is too well known to need recapitulation. [94]

Krishna, on the other hand, is portrayed in the Mahabharata as the
teacher of Bhagvat Gita , a book which expounds untrue and harmful
doctrines like the belief in god and immortal soul, avatarvada,
karmavada, varnashram dharma and the doctrine of moksha.

In Mahabharata Krishna adopts and advocates adoption of unfair means
like lying and deception for achieving one's ends. Obviously, he did
not believe in the doctrine of purity of ends and means. There are
several flaws in the character of Krishna as portrayed in the
Mahabharata, Bhagvat and Harivamsa. These have been ably enumerated by
Dr. Ambedkar in his The Riddle of Ram and Krishna . I refer the
interested reader to this work for a fuller treatment of this subject.
[95]

Conclusion
To conclude, I categorically reject major Hindu religious beliefs
including the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, varnashram
dharma , moksha, karmavada, and avatarvada. I am not an admirer of Ram
and Krishna, and I also do not believe in idol worship or the Hindu
taboo of not eating beef. I support logical and scientific thinking;
and a secular, rational morality based on human values of liberty,
equality and fraternity. Therefore, I am not a Hindu by conviction,
though I am a Hindu by birth.

Endnotes

[1] S. Radhakrishnan, The Hindu View of Life (Bombay: Blackie & Son
(India) Ltd., 1979), p. 12.

[2] Ibid., p. 14.

[3] Ibid., pp. 16-17.

[4] M.K.Gandhi, "Aspects of Hinduism" in Hindu Dharma (New Delhi:
Orient Paperbacks, 1978), p. 9.

[5] Ninian Smart, "Hinduism" in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (ed. in
chief, Paul Edwards) Vol. IV (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
& The Free Press, 1972), p.1.

[6] S.N.Dasgupta , A History of Indian Philosophy , Vol. 1 (Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1975), pp. 67-68.

[7] Chatterjee and Datta, An Introduction to Indian Philosophy .

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] S.N.Dasgupta, Op. Cit., p. 394.

[11] I have discussed the question of the existence of god in my small
Hindi book Kya Ishwar Mar Chuka Hai? (Patna: Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj,
1985, 1995). See, Is God Dead? (An introduction to Kya ishwar mar
chuka hai? ) [Patna: Buddhiwadi Foundation, 1998]

[12] M.K.Gandhi, "Aspects of Hinduism" in Hindu Dharma , pp. 9-10.

[13] A.L.B., "History of Hinduism" in The New Encyclopaedia
Britannica , Vol. 8 (Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1981),
pp. 910-11.

[14] B.R. Ambedkar , Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches,
Vol. 4, Riddles in Hinduism (Bombay: Education Department, Government
of Maharashtra, 1987), p. 332.

[15] Y.Masih, The Hindu Religious Thought (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass,
1983), pp. 192-93.

[16] Bhagvad-Gita I: 40,41, 42,43.

[17] B.G. IV: 13.15.

[18] Y.Masih, Op.Cit., p.208, Also see, pp. 224-25.

[19] V.P.Verma, Modern Indian Political Thought (Agra: Lakshmi Narain
Agarwal, 1991), pp. 50-51.

[20] Manusmriti (MS) I: 31.

[21] MS I:58.

[22] MS I:88.

[23] MS I:89.

[24] MS I: 90.

[25] MS I: 91.

[26] MS I: 93, Also see, X: 3.

[27] MS I: 95.

[28] MS I: 101.

[29] MS I: 103.

[30] MS II: 10,13.

[31] MS II: 11.

[32] MS VIII: 410.

[33] MS X: 96. Also see, Kautilya, Arthshastra I: 3, Quoted by J.N.
Farquhar in An Outline of the Religious Literature of India ( Delhi:
Motilal Banarsidass, 1984), p. 44.

[34] MS II: 135.

[35] MS VIII: 272.

[36] MS VIII: 281.

[37] MS II: 67.

[38] MS V: 154.

[39] MS V: 168,157.

[40] MS IX: 3.

[41] MS IX: 2.

[42] MS V: 147.

[43] MS V: 148.

[44] MS VIII: 379.

[45] MS VIII: 123.

[46] MS VIII: 364.

[47] MS VIII: 366.

[48] MS VIII: 412.

[49] MS VIII: 413.

[50] MS VIII: 268.

[51] MS VIII: 267.

[52] MS XI: 131.

[53] MS II: 31,32.

[54] MS II: 127.

[55] MS III: 111,112.

[56] MS VIII: 88.

[57] MS V: 92.

[58] MS VIII: 142.

[59] MS III: 4.

[60] MS III: 12.

[61] MS III: 14,15,16,17,18,19.

[62] MS X: 4.

[63] MS X: 25.

[64] MS X: 8.

[65] MS X: 12.

[66] Ibid.

[67] MS X: 50,51,52.

[68] MS X: 54,55.

[69] MS X: 53.

[70] MS X: 54.

[71] MS II: 168.

[72] MS VIII: 414.

[73] MS II: 113; X: 1.

[74] MS II: 116.

[75] MS II: 11.

[76] MS IV: 30.

[77] MS III: 65.

[78] MS VIII: 22.

[79] MS III:150, 161; IX: 225. From a humanist point of view, there is
nothing wrong in being born as a Shudra or a Chandala, but in the
context of the Manusmriti, these are abusive epithets.

[80] Manusmriti (Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, 1982), pp.
10-11.

[81]A.K.Warder, Indian Buddhism (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1980),p.
163.

[82] Y.Masih, The Hindu Religious Thought, pp. 336-37.

[83] Nirmal Kumar Bose, Selections from Gandhi ( Ahmedabad: Navajivan
Publishing House, 1972), p. 265.

[84] Ibid., p. 263.

[85] M.Haralambos, Sociology Themes and Perspectives (Delhi: Oxford
University Press, 1980) pp. 27-28.

[86] N.K.Bose, Op.Cit., p. 266.

[87] Louis Fischer, Gandhi (New York: New American Library, 1954), pp.
111-12, Also see, N.K.Bose, Op.Cit., p. 267.

[88] B.G. II: 20-25.

[89] S.N. Dasgutpa, A History of Indian Philosophy , Vol. I, p. 87.

[90] Chatterjee and Datta. An Introduction to Indian Philosophy .

[91] See M.N.Roy, "The Transmigration of Soul" in India's Message
( Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1982), pp. 4-6.

[92] Probably "the cycle of life and death" is considered "bondage"
because it will presumably lead to death again and again. So,
primarily the doctrine of liberation seems to be a reaction against
death.

[93] "Those whose conduct has been pleasing will quickly attain a
pleasing birth, the birth of a Brahman or a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya;
but those whose conduct has been abominable, will quickly attain
abominable birth, the birth of a dog, or a hog, or an Outcaste."
Brihadaranyaka, quoted by J.N. Farquhar, An Outline of the Religious
Literature of India , p. 34, Also see, S.N.Dasgupta, Op. Cit., p.
363.

[94] See, my "Why I do not want Ramrajya" in Why I am Not a Hindu &
Why I do not want Ramrajya (Patna: Bihar Rationalist Society, 1995).

[95] B.R. Ambedkar, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches ,
Vol. 4, Riddles in Hinduism.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/hindu.html

http://navanavonmilita.wordpress.com/his-masters-voice-sid-harth-3/

0 new messages