by Professor M. C. Behera
The protest against Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma, particularly in Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, has its origin in three sources. The first is Marxist ideology, which admonished religion for its role in creating social evils and inequality. This ideology was very active towards the last part of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th century, culminating in the October Revolution in 1917. This ideology influenced the social thought of E.V. Ramaswamy’s ‘Periyar’. The second source is casteism in South India, and the third is the wrongly directed caste system by the British policy of divide and rule, deliberately or accidentally. Taking advantage of caste divisions, the British created an exploiting class by including higher castes in its colonial machinery and making them socially and economically powerful. This powerful section from the ‘upper caste’ was dominating people in society and was considered to be representative of ‘upper castes’ in general, exploiting ‘lower castes’. The narrative got its mark among the ‘lower caste’ people. All three sources culminated in the writings of EV Ramaswamy ‘Periyar’, who launched the Self-Respect Movement (Dravidian Movement) in 1925 against the upper caste and the religion which was ‘controlled’ by them (Hinduism) for the benefit of lower castes, who mostly identified themselves as Dravidians.
One of Periyar’s most famous quotes says, ‘There is no god. He who created god is a fool. He who propagates god is a scoundrel. He who worships god is a barbarian’. He vehemently preached against Hinduism and Brahmins. His teachings have had a tremendous impact on the thinking of deprived castes. No doubt, the anti-Brahmin feeling in Tamil Nadu is the product of Periyar’s ideology based on a partial understanding of the then situation. This feeling echoes in Udayanidhi’s words as he states, ‘I am ready to present extensive writings of Periyar and Ambedkar, who conducted in-depth research on Sanatan Dharma and its negative impact on society…’. Following the same line of thinking, G. Parameshwara of Karnataka remarks, ‘Hinduism does not exist, nobody knows its origin’.
It is to be mentioned that what irked Periyar was not Sanatan Dharma, nor the upper caste people as a category, but the inequality which prevailed during that time as created by the British administration placing the upper caste at the front. All members of the upper caste were not economically, politically, and socially dominant. There were deprived families from upper castes, which is reflected in the recent demand for reservation by economically weaker sections. He misconceived the upper caste and Hinduism, following Marxian ideology and the then-prevailing situation. Misconception placed Hinduism and Brahmins as the root cause of social and economic inequality. This misconception, like opium, has been intoxicating some of his followers who do not use their brains, nor try to understand the phenomena in the total perspective in the context. The misconception draws on the wrong perception of an emerging situation.
The remark of G. Parameshwara, as mentioned above, is ridiculous and an indication of his ignorance. He understandably considers individual ideology on God and associated teachings as religion, even if it contradicts the rational mind. For centuries, Christianity believed that the earth is the center of the universe and that the sun moves around the earth. Every religion has such types of beliefs. But, religion has nothing to do with such beliefs; the human mind creates them. By working on a false theory of religion, that religion has a time of origin and that an individual creates religion, he denounces the movement of Adi Dharma, Saran Dharma, or Indigenous Religions. Nothing can be a more fundamentalist idea than limiting the vast canvas of ideas into a haversack, i.e., attributing religion to an individual! Before the individual, it was the community, and even at present, it is the community, a collective consciousness about human, nature, and supernature that defines religion. The elements, such as faith, beliefs, practices (rituals), and the idea of super consciousness, which are present in non-individual religions, are also present in religions advocated by individuals. Can there be no religion without a name after an individual?
Before the word ‘sample’ came to be used among academic circles, does it mean that it did not exist, and now it does not exist among non-academics? When a housewife cooks in an earthen pot on a fireplace, she takes a few grains to ascertain whether the rice is ready or not. She does not know that it is a sampling process. The process continues from time immemorial without a name!
Can G. Parameshwara state that there was no sampling because the term was not coined? We have heard of Lord Shiva’s cosmic dance. This is a dance that ‘does not exist’ with certainty at a definite place but has the ‘tendency to exist’ like subatomic particles as is compared by the great scientist Fritjaf Capra. Can we say that subatomic particles do not exist because Parameshwar cannot find them in a definite place and the tendency to exist has no name? Things exist and continue to exist without any name, without any individual ownership, and without the history of its origin.
What did the Chola kings do by way of constructing temples? What did Krishnadevray believe in? Did it have a name? Without a name, can we wash out their legacy? What were the teachings of the Sangam period and Alvars? Are they different from the essence of Sanatan Dharma?
Caste excess is a matter of concern. Some writers comment that defending Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma without recognizing caste excess is moral duplicity. Apparently true. But is the caste system the same as Sanatan Dharma? Is the caste system, i.e. casteism as it prevails, an essential philosophy of it? Ancient scriptures like Veda, Upanishads, and Bhagavad Gita do not promote casteism. They teach samabhavapana (to feel others as self), samdristi (to see all equally), and to see God in all beings, which Western scholars have wrongly conceptualized as animism. The caste system, as it prevails, contradicts the teachings of Sanatan Dharma; it is a deviation. The problem, therefore, is casteism, not Sanatan Dharma.
Periyar tried to work for the Dravidians to arouse their self-respect. Is the ‘respect’ of some Dravidians different from others? Or did he try to perceive the meaning of ‘respect’, which is not applicable to all the Dravidians equally? This question has its origin in his movement. DMK (Dravida Munentra Kazahagam) is the outcome of his movement committed to the welfare and self-respect of Dravidians through political means and to establish a Dravidian state. This lacked popular support and AIDMK (All India Anna Dravida Munentra Kazahagam) split from DMK in 1972. In 1949, one of Periyar’s closest aides, C. N. Annadurai, split from him due to ideological differences. Personal difference is also evident between M G Ramachandran and C.N. Annadurai leading to the split in DMK. Now there are other parties also. The question is: did Periyar perceive the problem rightly? Or is it personal ambition or narrow understanding of a problem that led to the split? Now Periyar’s ideology has been used to promote dynastic rule by Karunanidhi’s family to remain in power! It is certainly against Periyar’s perception of equality.
Udayanidhi also questions the existence of Sanatan Dharma, referring to its eternal character, adding to Parameshwar’s origin theory implicitly. He asks: ‘What is the meaning of Sanatan? It is eternal, that is, it cannot be changed; no one could pose any question, and that is the meaning’. Eternal is unchangeable, but not static; it does not have attestation of authorship; and it came with harmonious collective consciousness about human, nature, and supernature. So it has no formal beginning; though it has its origin in time, but undefined. It is unchangeable as it continues; it does not continue linearly and rigidly; it continues like a river expanding itself in its course. It has its expansion in time like the river that does not lose its water in the sea; rather, it gets new meaning. I am sure Udayanidi is aware of (tark) questioning as the basic principle in Hinduism.
Udayanidhi alleges Sanatan Dharma making women slaves and institutionalizing the Sati practice. How come he forgot slave trade by the countries professing Christianity and Islam? As we cannot blame the religion for the institution of slavery, for it was human deviation from religious teachings, so also we cannot blame Sanatan Dharma for people’s deviation from it. He alleges Sanatan Dharma for the institution of Sati. Does he find its mention in ancient scriptures like Vedas, Upanishadas, or Bhagavad Gita? It is to be mentioned that Queen Nayanika (also known as Naganika) of 2nd century BC of Satavahan Empire and Queen Anula of Anuradhapura of 1st Century BC could not have ruled even then had Sanatan Dharma allotted slave status to women.
Sanatan Dharama in the course of its journey has encountered negative forces like Muslim invasions, colonialism, etc. thereby causing deviations from the efforts of adjustment with new forces. Undoubtedly, the problem is deviation, not the Dharma itself. Patriarchy exists almost in all religious communities. It defines the status of women as compared with men culturally. For the existence of patriarchy across the globe, any sensible mind, I think, will not hold Sanatan Dharma responsible for its creation. I have discussed the essence and nature of equality in Sanatan Dharma in yesterday’s article published in Researchers’.
The issue of casteism was appreciated even in freedom movements. The Constitution of India has provisions against its practice. Still, it continues. The Constitution of India is not Sanatan Dharma, nor is it based on it. The continuity of casteism can be traced in other sources, not in Sanatan Dharma. Parties with socialist ideology like RJD and SP have not been able to eradicate casteism. Rather, they promote casteism for political gain. Even, the Constitution categorizes Indians on caste consideration. As socialists, committed to eradicating social inequality, have been using it for political gain, so also those who first enjoyed state power are trying to maintain it. People of the same caste prefer nearest relatives as beneficiaries than distant ones. That is why the caste people of socialist leaders, even after their long time rule, are deprived like other caste people.
Caste inequality is apparent, but not the underlying reasons of human greed for power. This greed excludes others, even their own people depending on the situation. This greed is responsible for promoting family, clan, and caste within a very limited territory. An oil man of Jharkhand is more nearer to a blacksmith of his area than the oil man of Rajasthan. Politicians belonging to the same caste, even family, contest in opposite camps. Caste is not a formidable factor to be reckoned with to understand social inequality in recent years. There are other factors, even commitment to the same political or religious ideology, which brings people together against other groups. Singling out caste as the cause of inequality makes one blind to the real cause of inequality that appears in different fronts.
Sanatan Dharam is not the promoter of inequality; it is an inclusive, leveling force and all-encompassing. Essentially, it teaches sharing, fellow feeling, minimization of material needs; a spiritual way of engaging with the fulfillment of material aspirations. It shuns accumulation. Arguably, inequality and even exploitation have emerged not because of Sanatan Dharma, but because of people’s deviation from it. It is evident when people deviated from Periyar’s stand, they formed different political parties. It is evident in the dynastic rule of Udayanidhi’s family committed to social equality. Dynastic rule is not a feature of social equality I think!
The issue is inequality, and its reason is falsely attributed to Sanatan Dharma, which in fact is a leveling force. The inequality at the caste level may be found in the process of early and late participation in state administration. The factor of participation is also the cause of intra-caste inequality. Human greed for power is at the root of accumulation and exclusion in which caste has been a victim. That is why inequality spreads more in different forms in different guises. Controversy on Sanatan Dharma, as one can understand with a critical mind, is not about it, but ignorance about it. It is like understanding the vastness, nature, and depth of the sea by making feet wet in waves on the beach.
(The author is a Professor at Arunachal Institute of Tribal Studies and Rajiv Gandhi University, Itanagar, Arunachal Pradesh can be contacted email: mcbehera1959@gmail.com; (M): 9436252229)