Dr. B.R. Ambedkar

[nachi naga]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

osho on ambedkar

Mahatma Gandhi was the uncrowned king of India.

For the simple reason that he was able to torture himself more than
anybody else could. For any small reason he would go on a fast "unto
death." Every fast was "unto death," but within three, four days, it
would be broken -- there were methods to break it -- and soon there
would be a breakfast; everything was arranged.

But people can be deceived very easily.... He goes on a fast, and the
whole country prays to God that he should not die. All the great
leaders rush towards his ashram and pray to him to stop but he won't
listen unless his conditions are accepted -- any conditions,
undemocratic, dictatorial, idiotic -- any conditions.

For example he fasted against Doctor Ambedkar who was the head of the
untouchables. Ambedkar wanted the untouchables to have their own
constituencies and their own candidates, otherwise they would never be
represented in any parliament anywhere. Who would give votes to a
shoemaker? In India a shoemaker is untouchable -- who is going to give
him the vote?

Ambedkar was absolutely right. One fourth of the country is
untouchable. They are not allowed in schools because no other student
is prepared to sit with them, no teacher is ready to teach them. The
government says the schools are open, but in reality no student is
willing.... If one untouchable enters, all thirty students leave the
class, the teacher leaves the class. Then how are these poor people --
one fourth of the country -- going to be represented? They should be
given separate constituencies where only they can stand and only they
can vote.

Ambedkar was perfectly logical and perfectly human. But Gandhi went on
a fast, saying, "He is trying to create a division within the Hindu
society." The division has existed for ten thousand years. That poor
Ambedkar was not creating the division, he was simply saying that one
fourth of the people of the country had been tortured for thousands of
years. Now at least give them a chance to advance themselves. At least
let them voice their problems in the parliament, in the assemblies.
But Gandhi said, "I will not allow it while I am alive. They are part
of Hindu society, hence they cannot have a separate voting system" --
and he went on fasting.

For twenty-one days Ambedkar remained reluctant, but every day... the
pressure of the whole country. And he started feeling that if this old
man dies then there is going to be great bloodshed. It was clear -- he
would be killed immediately, and millions of the untouchables would be
killed everywhere, all over the country: "It is because of you that
Gandhi died." When the whole arithmetic of how it would work out was
explained to him -- "You figure it out soon, because there is not much
time, he cannot survive more than three days" -- Ambedkar hesitated.

He was perfectly right; Gandhi was perfectly wrong.

But what to do? Should he take the risk? He was not worried about his
life -- if he was killed it was okay -- but he was worried about those
millions of poor people who didn't know anything about what was going
on. Their houses would be burned, their women would be raped, their
children would be butchered. And it would be something that had never
happened before.

Finally he had to accept the conditions. He went with the breakfast in
his hand to Mahatma Gandhi, "I accept your conditions. We will not ask
for a separate vote or separate candidates. Please accept this orange
juice." And Gandhi accepted the orange juice.

But this orange juice, this one glass of orange juice, contains
millions of people's blood.

I have met Doctor Ambedkar. He was one of the most intelligent men I
have ever met. But I said, "You proved weak."

He said, "You don't understand: the situation was such that I knew I
was right and he was wrong, but what to do with that stubborn old man?
He was going to die, and if he died then I would have been responsible
for his death, and the untouchables would have suffered."

I said, "That is not the point. Even an idiot could have suggested a
simple thing to you. You should have gone on a fast unto death. And
you are so overweight." He was a fat man, four or five times heavier
than Gandhi. "If you had asked me.... A simple solution: just put
another cot by the side of Mahatma Gandhi, lie down, and fast unto
death. Then let them see! I promise you that Gandhi would have
accepted all your conditions within three days."

Ambedkar said, "But this idea never occurred to me."

I said, "You are a fool if this idea never occurred to you! That was
the idea with which that man was controlling the whole country -- and
it never occurred to you. The only difficulty would have been to go on
a fast -- particularly for a man like you: fat, eating four times a
day. Naturally you would not have been able to manage it. Gandhi has
practiced his whole life, he is an experienced faster; and you may not
have ever missed a single breakfast."

He said, "That is true."

I said, "Otherwise if it had been my problem and he was being so
illogical, I would have just lain down, even if I was going to die,
and let him be responsible. He would not have allowed that, because my
death would have taken away all his mahatmahood, all his aura, all his
leadership of the people. He would not have allowed me to die; he
would have accepted my conditions.

"But unfortunately I am not an untouchable, and anyway why should I be
bothered with you two idiots? To me both of you are idiots. You have
one fourth of the country in your hands and you can't do anything;
that man has nothing in his hands -- but just by fasting.... He has
learned a womanly trick. Yes, I call his whole philosophy a feminine
psychology."

Re: Osho on Ambedkar and Gandhi

 

[Nara]

Impossible to reform the Caste System

(Edited excerpts from BRA's never delivered speech to Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal)

Caste is the natural outcome of certain religious beliefs which have the sanction of the Shastras, which are believed to contain the command of divinely inspired sages who were endowed with a supernatural wisdom and whose commands, therefore, cannot be disobeyed without committing a sin. The Hindus hold to the sacredness of the social order. Caste has a divine basis. You must therefore destroy the sacredness and divinity with which Caste has become invested. This means you must destroy the authority of the Shastras and the Vedas.

I see the task to be well-nigh impossible. (for two reasons)

Reason 1
One of these reasons is the attitude of hostility which the Brahmins have shown towards this question. The Brahmins form the vanguard of the movement for political reform, and in some cases also of economic reform. But they are not to be found even as camp-followers in the army raised to break down the barricades of Caste. Is there any hope of the Brahmins ever taking up a lead in the future in this matter? I say no.

You may argue that there are secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins, and if the latter do not take up the cudgels on behalf of those who want to break Caste, the former will. In my judgment, it is useless to make a distinction between the secular Brahmins and priestly Brahmins. Both are kith and kin. They are two arms of the same body, and one is bound to fight for the existence of the other. … a man who is born a Brahmin has much less desire to become a revolutionary. Indeed, to expect a Brahmin to be a revolutionary in matters of social reform is as idle as to expect the British Parliament, as was said by Leslie Stephen, to pass an Act requiring all blue-eyed babies to be murdered.

Some of you will say that it is a matter of small concern whether the Brahmins come forward to lead the movement against Caste or whether they do not. ......in every country the intellectual class is the most influential class, if not the governing class. An intellectual man can be a good man, but he can easily be a rogue. Similarly an intellectual class may be a band of high-souled persons, ready to help, ready to emancipate erring humanity—or it may easily be a gang of crooks, or a body of advocates for a narrow clique from which it draws its support. …. the fact remains that the Brahmins form the intellectual class of the Hindus. It is not only an intellectual class, but it is a class which is held in great reverence by the rest of the Hindus.

The Hindus are taught that the Brahmins are Bhudevas (Gods on earth) . The Hindus are taught that Brahmins alone can be their teachers. Manu says, "If it be asked how it should be with respect to points of the Dharma which have not been specially mentioned, the answer is, that which Brahmins who are Shishthas propound shall doubtless have legal force" When such an intellectual class, which holds the rest of the community in its grip, is opposed to the reform of Caste, the chances of success in a movement for the break-up of the Caste system appear to me very, very remote.

Reason 2
Caste system has two aspects. In one of its aspects, it divides men into separate communities. In its second aspect, it places these communities in a graded order one above the other in social status. Each caste takes its pride and its consolation in the fact that in the scale of castes it is above some other caste. Now this gradation, this scaling of castes, makes it impossible to organise a common front against the Caste System. If a caste claims the right to inter-dine and inter-marry with another caste placed above it, it is frozen the instant it is told by mischief-mongers—and there are many Brahmins amongst such mischief-mongers—that it will have to concede inter-dining and inter-marriage with castes below it! All are slaves of the Caste System. But all the slaves are not equal in status.

To excite the proletariat to bring about an economic revolution, Karl Marx told them: "You have nothing to lose except your chains." But the artful way in which the social and religious rights are distributed among the different castes, whereby some have more and some have less, makes the slogan of Karl Marx quite useless to excite the Hindus against the Caste System. Castes form a graded system of sovereignties, high and low, which are jealous of their status and which know that if a general dissolution came, some of them stand to lose more of their prestige and power than others do. You cannot, therefore, have a general mobilization of the Hindus (to use a military expression) for an attack on the Caste System.

 

[nachi naga]

Ambadcur, by Marrying the doctor brahmin Mai has shown us that even women in Brahmin community is worthy and the only way dalit can be saved is to get married into their jati ie brahmin,and let dalits have a matriarchal branch of genes from brahmins. Brahmin women are also Dalits in a way.Dalit women are aslo brahmins in a way.Brahmin men shud keep dalit women as 'chinna veedu' if they an afford it and society permit's such a set up. Manu treats women like goddess, every brahmin woman is a amsam of goddess. Dalit women are much more free with their morals than the brahmins women. Dalit women dont become untouchable during menstruation,as they will be deprived of livelihood,as dalit men are mostly loafer's. Dalit women work in the fields and they cook even during a resting period like mensturation,as they need to feed mouths and bellies..and today brahmin women work in offices,call centers,programmers,engineers,doctors,politicians...etc

 

[Nara]

Reason to be shunned

Edited excerpt of BRA's never given speech on caste continues...


Is a Hindu free to follow his reason? Manu has laid down a Hindu must follow either Veda, Smriti or sadachar. He cannot follow anything else. Whenever any doubt arises regarding their meaning of the Vedas and Smritis, Manu says, rationalism as a canon of interpreting the Vedas and Smritis is absolutely condemned.

Even when there is a conflict on a positive injunction, when there is a conflict between two Shrutis, both are to be regarded as of equal authority. No attempt is to be made to find out which of the two accords with reason. When there is a conflict between Shruti and Smriti, the Shruti must prevail. But here too, no attempt must be made to find out which of the two accords with reason. When there is a conflict between two Smritis, the Manu Smriti must prevail, but no attempt is to be made to find out which of the two accords with reason.

A Hindu is not free to use his reasoning faculty.

Man's life is generally habitual and unreflective. Reflective thought is quite rare, and arises only in a situation which presents a dilemma or a crisis. Railway journeys and foreign travels are really occasions of crisis in the life of a Hindu, and it is natural to expect a Hindu to ask himself why he should maintain Caste at all, if he cannot maintain it at all times. But he does not. He breaks Caste at one step, and proceeds to observe it at the next, without raising any question. The reason for this astonishing conduct is to be found in the rule of the Shastras, which directs him to maintain Caste as far as possible and to undergo prayaschitta when he cannot.

There have been many who have worked in the cause of the abolition of Caste and Untouchability. Of those who can be mentioned, Ramanuja, Kabir, and others stand out prominently. Can you appeal to the acts of these reformers and exhort the Hindus to follow them?

It is true that Manu has included sadachar as one of the sanctions along with Shruti and Smriti. Indeed, sadachar has been given a higher place than Shastras: According to this, sadachar, whether it is dharmya or adharmya, in accordance with Shastras or contrary to Shastras, must be followed.

But what is the meaning of sadachar? If anyone were to suppose that sadachar means right or good acts—i.e., acts of good and righteous men — he would find himself greatly mistaken. Sadachar does not means good acts or acts of good men. It means ancient custom, good or bad.

The Smritis have commanded the Hindus in unmistakable terms not to follow even Gods in their good deeds, if they are contrary to Shruti, Smriti, and sadachar. This may sound to be most extraordinary, most perverse, but the fact remains that is an injunction issued to the Hindus by their Shastras.

Reason and morality are the two most powerful weapons in the armoury of a reformer. To deprive him of the use of these weapons is to disable him for action. Brahmins who are the natural leaders of the Hindus, Brahmins who are there not as mere mercenary soldiers but as an army fighting for its homeland, and you will get an idea why I think that the breaking up of Caste among the Hindus is well-nigh impossible.

But whether the doing of the deed takes time or whether it can be done quickly, you must not forget that if you wish to bring about a breach in the system, then you have got to apply the dynamite to the Vedas and the Shastras, which deny any part to reason; to the Vedas and Shastras, which deny any part to morality. You must destroy the religion of the Shrutis and the Smritis. Nothing else will avail. This is my considered view of the matter.

 

[nachi naga]

Ambadcur was a scheming opportunist whose only single point agenda like EVR agenda is the decimation and destruction of the entire Brahmin race.

 

[nachi naga]

Right outside Chidambaram Natarajar temple stands this black hoarding

Kadavul illai illave illai. Kadavulai vendubavan muttal. Kadavulai vendubavan kaatu mirandi � loosely translated it means There is no God. Only a fool prays to God. Only a barbaric idiot prays to God.

What rights does an atheist have in critising the beliefs of a believer. He might have his opinion but when he says Im a fool and a barbaric idiot he steps out and interferes in my personal fundamental right.

Can these rationalists put the same board outside Jumma Masjid? So much so for rationalism and atheism. All this barking only against spineless Hindus. Arent muslims and Christians believers? Why not put up such boards outside churches and dargas?

The next day these Periyars and Karunanidhis would be hunted on the streets like stray dogs. And the secular media will demand their head. So much so for their double standards. Their rationalism and atheism is pure anti Brahminism anti Hinduism in disguise.

Even today in USA,the application forms ask you which races you belong to?

Race is nothing but a similiar profiling like caste.

The voting rights were given to african-american after getting butchered thru slavery and even to this day,the black caucasus,is a minority and then asian-american a minority amongst minority.

And when an American posts about caste and Ambadcur ,its hilarious to note.People living in glass houses throwing stones at others.

 

[Nara]

... If we apply that code of moral now..all of us are immoral only..

NN is completely devoid of any moral compass. He craps all over like a child without a diaper, nobody caring to cleanup. So far, only Raghy and Kunjuppu have bothered to say anything about this. For the rest, it is all fun I suppose.

Childishness is cute when a child does it.

Well, well, life goes on ....

 

[nachi naga]

Renu, NN is completely devoid of any moral compass. He craps all over like a child without a diaper, nobody caring to cleanup. So far, only Raghy and Kunjuppu have bothered to say anything about this. For the rest, it is all fun I suppose.

Childishness is cute when a child does it.

Well, well, life goes on ....

nara

moral or immoral,who is to judge?

Raghy Kunjuppu expressed their opinion and i express mine.

The crap i crapped was cleaned by praveen silverfox to name a few moderators here.While i am a baby,you are an overgrown baby,crapping the load on us Indian's and our sentiments.

 

[nachi naga]

About the unfounded oft repeated lie that Brahmins are perpetrators of Casteism in TN and that Brahmins have robbed other castes of their position in governmental jobs, just look around. For 50 years we have had anti Brahmin Governments ruling TN. How have they managed to make social life in TN better? Have caste conflicts lessened? They have infact worsened and we have caste outfits headed by Ramdoss and Thirumavalavan virtually behaving like mafia dons in caste ridden pockets of TN. What have you achieved by such state sponsored apartheid?

 

[nachi naga]

Even after 60 years of Indian Independence we still hear spine chilling stories of Takurs and Jats raping and burning SCs and STs and Koundars and Vanniyars in Tamilnadu burning down SC and ST hamlest and vice versa. So have the governments succeeded in weeding out casteism after the systematic rape of Brahmins over the years? Now who will take revenge for the present day state and how many more years of reservation do we need?

 

[sapthajihva]

With due respects Shri Nara, I really think, for all his spontaneous outbursts, Shri nachi naga has a point.

First of all, this thread has no relevance in this forum. Only you have been carrying this scorch of anti-casteism in all your threads. Well, that is your opinion, and you are free to voice it. But quotes like

...then you have got to apply the dynamite to the Vedas and the Shastras, which deny any part to reason; to the Vedas and Shastras, which deny any part to morality. You must destroy the religion of the Shrutis and the Smritis. Nothing else will avail.

do not belong to this forum at all. I do think that this forum is for reaching to our community and doing some service. Not to set us thinking whether the tag of brahmins is really needed at all!

The idea that caste is not needed is your domain of thoughts; you have expressed the same. But cutting across all threads with the same intent, starting this thread, reeks of a single point agenda; that is not signs of healthy discussions.

Atrocities have been committed by humankind over the centuries, with or without caste. They will continue to be so, if deluded to believe that wiping out religion would end such miseries. When your mind sees caste as discrimination, I do not. From this, it is evident that it is the mind which sees things differently and not the object that makes it think so. For the latter to be true, we both should have thought the same!

I would be spinning the same wheel, if I were to say more.

Regards,

 

[nachi naga]

The desperate barrage of lies shelled out by this poster is at times humorous. Periyar started anti Brahminism to achieve his personal goal of self flagellation. Anti Brahminism of Karunanidhi and Periyar is just a public front to settle scores with their enemies. Periyar silenced Rajaji with this and Karunanidhi has silenced Jayalalitha with this tool. Though Jayalalitha deserves to be hanged in public for being the most spiteful vengeful and disgusting CM we ever had is another issue. Lets not even compare Rajaji to Jaya and degrade the statesman. The only thing they both have in common is that they had very cunning political enemies who used the anti Brahmin card to ensure their hold on state power politics.

 

[Nara]

Dear Saptha, we have been at the exact opposite ends of the spectrum on many issues, and yet we have managed to exchange views in a civil tone. We have even had fun kidding each other I enjoyed that as well.

But, if any points are to be made it must be done in a healthy fashion. Crapping all over makes no point, only makes crap.

...First of all, this thread has no relevance in this forum. Only you have been carrying this scorch of anti-casteism in all your threads.

"All" my threads? Do you really thing that?

You have also commented about my single point agenda several times in the past as well. That is your opinion, but far from the truth. If I am permitted a moment of immodesty, I daresay I have taken the time and effort to write and share whatever little knowledge I know about SV here. Not a lot of people can say this about what they care about.

Be that as it may, if I must not talk about castiesm and Brahminism here in a forum named after a caste, where else am I supposed to do it? While I have been quite relentless and unsparing, I have tried my best to stick to the points and never go below the belt.

When I started this thread I was not planning on excerpting BRA's treatise on caste. But, I was just blown away by the push back I got for the mere mention that BRA was a great Indian. Shots were coming from all directions. That is why I started posting BRA's arguments against caste.

Now, you may feel TBs must just close their eyes and ears and not bother about why people criticize Brahminism, that is your view. but I think that is not good. Even if you disagree, there is no harm in understanding what BRA is trying to say. If you feel like it, present a cogent argument against his case, and we can talk about. But, shutting me up is not very healthy.

Like the title of Howard Zinn's memoir says, "You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train".

Cheers!

 

[nachi naga]

since bra is taken as example,here are some excerpts for caste:-

It is said Periyar started hating Brahminism and not Brahmins because a Brahmin refused to feed him in Varanasi. Firstly no one knows if this cheap story is true. Even if it were to be true, how is it justified that you start hating an entire race based on what a Brahmin did in Varanasi years ago? Will a state decide its education policy based on what a Brahmin did to one old rotting casteist politician? In what way are these scumbags better than Hitler?
And Karunanidhi ridicules Hindus and Brahmins at any given opportunity. As elected Head of Tamil Nadu isn't he the Chief Minister of Brahmins of TN? Can he disown the entire Brahmin race? Arent we not entitled to a life in TN? You shamelessly solicit votes during elections but with such racist mentality can you openly declare that you are not our CM? Isn't this untouchability practiced by the state? EVR Periyar started this culture of hate. Annadurai and Karunanidhi perfected it. Jayalalitha ( of unknown parentage who calls herself a Brahmin ) enjoys the spoils of this. This is TN politics for you.

 

[sapthajihva]

Shri Nara,

Dear Saptha, we have been at the exact opposite ends of the spectrum on many issues, and yet we have managed to exchange views in a civil tone. We have even had fun kidding each other I enjoyed that as well.

The feeling is mutual sir.

But, if any points are to be made it must be done in a healthy fashion. Crapping all over makes no point, only makes crap.

I have to agree with this. Well, it seems that the way the thread was leaning to, was provoking enough for some, including me.

.... I daresay I have taken the time and effort to write and share whatever little knowledge I know about SV here. Not a lot of people can say this about what they care about.

I agree completely. Kudos to you for that.

Be that as it may, if I must not talk about castiesm and Brahminism here in a forum named after a caste, where else am I supposed to do it?

Well, let us try to see it this way. After all the sidekicks elsewhere, brahmins get to meet in a forum to discuss their affairs; there would be some feelings of regret, and queries raised etc in such an ambience. But what is disappointing, after all the grind outside, is that the record player sings the same tune here all well. Yes, you may say that there are umpteen threads in which people can poke their heads about. But it is the black dot in white paper that catches the attention.

Dont get me wrong; I am not trying to restrict your views or that of anybody else. What you are doing here is psychological; minds that have not matured will be drawn towards outlandish ideas. If that were a product of their own reasoning, that is a different matter.

Again, people may not even log into a forum if they know that it is the same flour that is being ground, i.e., caste topics. Is there nothing else to talk about? Some sathvic matters...

While I have been quite relentless and unsparing, I have tried my best to stick to the points and never go below the belt.

Yes, in this we all could learn a thing or two from you.

Now, you may feel TBs must just close their eyes and ears and not bother about why people criticize Brahminism, that is your view.

I dont think so. I feel that we have heard enough of the din against us. We want to be left to ourselves at some corner where we can have some peace.

... If you feel like it, present a cogent argument against his case, and we can talk about.

Maybe... if I feel like, will do.

But, shutting me up is not very healthy.

Not my intention, but perhaps I hope I have clarified in this reply.

..."You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train".

This is one station where the train stops, to refuel and move on...

Regards,

 

[Nara]

.. it seems that the way the thread was leaning to, was provoking enough for some, including me.

It is winding down, I should be done soon. Just hold your nose for a little longer.

I still think you ought to look at it and get to to know what your "poorvapaksham" is.

..But it is the black dot in white paper that catches the attention.

..

What you are doing here is psychological;

I know what you mean, but I think one should not be afraid of ideas changing the "immature" mind, that is how it will get matured. If after reading all that I am dishing out, if the young mind is still sold on caste, you will have a committed fighter on your side.

On the other hand, if the mind gets changed, it got changed by the power of the ideas, and that should be welcome.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

(This is a continuation of heavily edited series of excerpts from a speech BRA never gave to a group of Dalit Hindus. This group was completely dedicated to remaining Hindus, but were opposed to the caste system and wanted its eradication through inter-dining and inter-marriage. Their failure to achieve their goals is indeed a loss for all of us.

Since BRA was planning to leave the Hindu fold at the end of this speech, the Dalit group withdrew the invitation and he never gave the speech.

We are coming to a close, after this post, there are two more small sections; after that Gandhi's response to BRA and finally BRA's rebuttal to Gandhi's response.

I request interested members to read through this and understand the arguments even if you disagree with all of them. After all, as they say, knowledge is power.)

===========
Religion or laws

Some may not understand what I mean by destruction of Religion; some may find the idea revolting to them, and some may find it revolutionary. Let me therefore explain my position.

I do not know whether you draw a distinction between principles and rules. Rules are practical; they are habitual ways of doing things according to prescription. But principles are intellectual; it guides him in his thinking by suggesting to him the important consideration which he should bear in mind.

Doing what is said to be good by virtue of a rule, and doing good in the light of a principle, are two different things. Religion must mainly be a matter of principles only. It cannot be a matter of rules. The moment it degenerates into rules, it ceases to be Religion, as it kills the responsibility which is the essence of a truly religious act.

What is this Hindu Religion? Is it a set of principles, or is it a code of rules? Now the Hindu Religion, as contained in the Vedas and the Smritis, is nothing but a mass of sacrificial, social, political, and sanitary rules and regulations, all mixed up. What is called Religion by the Hindus is nothing but a multitude of commands and prohibitions. Religion, in the sense of spiritual principles, truly universal, applicable to all races, to all countries, to all times, is not to be found in them; and if it is, it does not form the governing part of a Hindu's life.

That for a Hindu, Dharma means commands and prohibitions, is clear from the way the word Dharma is used in the Vedas and the Smritis and understood by the commentators. The word Dharma as used in the Vedas in most cases means religious ordinances or rites. Even Jaimini in his Purva-Mimamsa defines Dharma as "a desirable goal or result that is indicated by injunctive (Vedic) passages."

To put it in plain language, what the Hindus call Religion is really Law, or at best legalized class-ethics. They are not the same for one class as for another. But this iniquity is made perpetual in that they are prescribed to be the same for all generations. Happiness notoriously varies with the conditions and circumstances of a person, as well as with the conditions of different people and epochs. That being the case, how can humanity endure this code of eternal laws, without being cramped and without being crippled?

I have, therefore, no hesitation in saying that such a religion must be destroyed, and I say there is nothing irreligious in working for the destruction of such a religion. So long as people look upon it as Religion they will not be ready for a change, because the idea of Religion is generally speaking not associated with the idea of change. But the idea of law is associated with the idea of change, and when people come to know that what is called Religion is really Law, old and archaic, they will be ready for a change, for people know and accept that law can be changed.

 

[Nara]

New life

(Heavily edited excerpts continues...)

While I condemn a Religion of Rules, I am anxious that their place shall be taken by a Religion of Principles, which alone can lay claim to being a true Religion. The following, in my opinion, should be the cardinal items in this reform:

1. There should be one and only one standard book of Hindu Religion, acceptable to all Hindus and recognized by all Hindus.
2. Every person who professes to be a Hindu must be eligible for being a priest.
3. ..it should be made penal for a person who has no sanad (certification) to officiate as a priest.
4. A priest should be the servant of the State, and should be subject to the disciplinary action of the State in the matter of his morals, beliefs, and worship,
5. The number of priests should be limited by law according to the requirements of the State, as is done in the case of the I.C.S.

To some, this may sound radical. But to my mind there is nothing revolutionary in this. Every profession in India is regulated. Engineers must show proficiency, doctors must show proficiency, lawyers must show proficiency, before they are allowed to practise their professions.

The priest's is the only profession where proficiency is not required.

Mentally a priest may be an idiot, physically a priest may be suffering from a foul disease, morally he may be a wreck. But he is fit to officiate at solemn ceremonies, to enter the sanctum sanctorum of a Hindu temple, and to worship the Hindu God. All this becomes possible among the Hindus because for a priest it is enough to be born in a priestly caste. It knows only of rights and privileges.

It will certainly help to kill Brahminism and will also help to kill Caste, which is nothing but Brahminism incarnate. Whether you do that or you do not, you must give a new doctrinal basis to your Religion—a basis that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity; in short, with Democracy. I am told that for such religious principles as will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, you could draw for such principles on the Upanishads.

It means new life. But a new life cannot enter a body that is dead. New life can enter only into a new body. The old body must die before a new body can come into existence and a new life can enter into it. To put it simply: the old must cease to be operative before the new can begin to enliven and to pulsate. This is what I meant when I said you must discard the authority of the Shastras, and destroy the religion of the Shastras.

 

[nachi naga]

nara

It will certainly help to kill Brahminism and will also help to kill Caste, which is nothing but Brahminism incarnate. Whether you do that or you do not, you must give a new doctrinal basis to your Religion—a basis that will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity; in short, with Democracy. I am told that for such religious principles as will be in consonance with Liberty, Equality and Fraternity, you could draw for such principles on the Upanishads.

Lord Krishna was not a brahmin neither was arjuna.this is how people are brainwashed by non-brahmins about brahmins.lord krishna explains the four personalities inherent in humanity and accordingly tags them as brahmanas ksahtriyas vaishyas shoodras.now suddenly if lord krishna ,samnskritham speaking mother tongue god,is a brahmana,Am-Bad-Cur,is an idiot as Bhagavan Osho has said.

 

[Nara]

Folks, this is the concluding section of the speech BRA never gave to Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal in Lahore. I will have two more posts, one will cover Gandhi's response to BRA and the second BRA's rebuttal of Gandhi's response.


Some questions Hindus to consider seriously
Hindus must consider what kind of morality, beliefs, habits, and outlook have worked best and have enabled those who possessed them to flourish, to grow strong, to people the earth and to have dominion over it.

Secondly, the Hindus must consider whether they should conserve the whole of their social heritage, or select what is helpful and transmit to future generations only that much and no more.

Thirdly, the Hindus must consider whether they must not cease to worship the past as supplying their ideals. The principle which makes little of the present act of living and growing, naturally looks upon the present as empty and upon the future as remote. Such a principle is inimical to progress, and is a hindrance to a strong and a steady current of life.

Fourthly, the Hindus must consider whether the time has not come for them to recognize that there is nothing fixed, nothing eternal, nothing sanatan; that everything is changing, that change is the law of life for individuals as well as for society. In a changing society, there must be a constant revolution of old values; and the Hindus must realize that if there must be standards to measure the acts of men, there must also be a readiness to revise those standards.

The struggle is yours, not mine
All this may not be enough to commend my views. I think they are not likely to alter yours. But whether they do or do not, the responsibility is entirely yours. You must make your efforts to uproot Caste, if not in my way, then in your way.

I am sorry, I will not be with you. I have decided to change. This is not the place for giving reasons. But even when I am gone out of your fold, I will watch your movement with active sympathy, and you will have my assistance for what it may be worth.

Yours is more difficult than the other national cause, namely Swaraj. In the fight for Swaraj you fight with the whole nation on your side. In this, you have to fight against the whole nation—and that too, your own. But it is more important than Swaraj. There is no use having Swaraj, if you cannot defend it.

More important than the question of defending Swaraj is the question of defending the Hindus under the Swaraj. In my opinion, it is only when Hindu Society becomes a casteless society that it can hope to have strength enough to defend itself. Without such internal strength, Swaraj for Hindus may turn out to be only a step towards slavery.

Good-bye, and good wishes for your success.

 

[Nara]

Gandhi's response

Gandhi published two articles in the publication "Harijan". Gandhi also published a letter he received from Mr. Sant Ram, a member of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal. I provide below edited excerpts of these.

You will see that the apologies offered for caste/varna today are not very different from the ones Gandhi offered more than 70 years ago.

Tomorrow I will post BRA's rebuttal of Gandhi's articles.

Here goes ....



A Vindication Of Caste By Mahatma Gandhi - Excerpts from his Articles in the Harijan

No reformer can ignore the address. The orthodox will gain by reading it. It has to be read only because it is open to serious objection. Dr. Ambedkar is a challenge to Hinduism. Brought up as a Hindu, educated by a Hindu potentate, he has become so disgusted with the so-called Savarna Hindus or the treatment that he and his people have received at their hands that he proposes to leave not only them but the very religion that is his and their common heritage.

One can only judge a system or an institution by the conduct of its representatives. What is more, Dr. Ambedkar found that the vast majority of Savarna Hindus had not only conducted themselves inhumanly, but they had based their conduct on the authority of their scriptures. The author of the address has quoted chapter and verse in proof of his three-fold indictment—inhuman conduct itself, the unabashed justification for it on the part of the perpetrators, and the subsequent discovery that the justification was warranted by their scriptures.

Thank God, in the front rank of the leaders he [Dr Ambedkar] is singularly alone, and as yet but a representative of a very small minority. But what he says is voiced with more or less vehemence by many leaders belonging to the depressed classes -- not only do not threaten to give up Hinduism, but find enough warmth in it to compensate for the shameful persecution to which the vast mass of Harijans are exposed.

But the fact of many leaders remaining in the Hindu fold is no warrant for disregarding what Dr. Ambedkar has to say. The Savarnas have to correct their belief and their conduct. The questions that Dr. Ambedkar's indictment suggests are:

1. What are the scriptures?
2. Are all the printed texts to be regarded as an integral part of them, or is any part of them to be rejected as unauthorised interpolation?
3. What is the answer of such accepted and expurgated scriptures on the question of untouchability, caste, equality of status, inter-dining and intermarriages?

These have been all examined by Dr. Ambedkar in his address.

The Vedas, Upanishads, Smritis and Puranas, including the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, are the Hindu Scriptures. Smritis contain much that can never be accepted as the word of God. Thus many of the texts that Dr. Ambedkar quotes from the Smritis cannot be accepted as authentic. Nothing can be accepted as the word of God which cannot be tested by reason or be capable of being spiritually experienced. [T]he accumulated experience of the sages and saints will abide and be an inspiration for ages to come.

Caste has nothing to do with religion. It is a custom whose origin I do not know, and do not need to know for the satisfaction of my spiritual hunger. Varna and Ashrama are institutions which have nothing to do with castes. The law of Varna teaches us that we have each one of us to earn our bread by following the ancestral calling. It defines not our rights but our duties.

The callings of a Brahmin—spiritual teacher—and a scavenger are equal, and their due performance carries equal merit before God, and at one time seems to have carried identical reward before man. Both were entitled to their livelihood and no more. Indeed one traces even now in the villages the faint lines of this healthy operation of the law.

Real Brahmins are to be found, even in these degenerate days, who are living on alms freely given to them and are giving freely of what they have of spiritual treasures. It would be wrong and improper to judge the law of Varna by its caricature in the lives of men who profess to belong to a Varna, whilst they openly commit a breach of its only operative rule. And there is nothing in the law of Varna to warrant a belief in untouchability. (The essence of Hinduism is contained in its enunciation of one and only [one] God as Truth and its bold acceptance of Ahimsa as the law of the human family.)
In my opinion the profound mistake that Dr. Ambedkar has made in his address is to pick out the texts of doubtful authenticity and value, and the state of degraded Hindus who are no fit specimens of the faith they so woefully misrepresent. Judged by the standard applied by Dr. Ambedkar, every known living faith will probably fail.

Can a religion that was professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar, Ramakrishna Paramahansa, Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Maharshi Devendranath Tagore, Vivekanand, and a host of others who might be easily mentioned, be so utterly devoid of merit as is made out in Dr. Ambedkar's address? A religion has to be judged not by its worst specimens, but by the best it might have produced. For that and that alone can be used as the standard to aspire to, if not to improve upon.

Letter from Sant Ramji
Shri Sant Ramji of the Jat-Pat-Todak Mandal of Lahore wants me to publish the following:

"……The Doctor in the supplementary portion of his address insisted on saying that that was his last speech as a Hindu, which was irrelevant as well as pernicious to the interests of the conference. So we requested him to expunge that sentence, for he could easily say the same thing on any other occasion. But he refused, and we saw no utility in making merely a show of our function. In spite of all this, I cannot help praising his address, which is, as far as I know, the most learned thesis on the subject and worth translating into every vernacular of India."

“I want to bring to your notice that your philosophical difference between Caste and Varna is too subtle to be grasped by people in general, because for all practical purposes in the Hindu society Caste and Varna are one and the same thing, for the function of both of them is one and the same, i.e. to restrict inter-caste marriages and inter-dining. So when you advocate your ideal of imaginary Varnavyavastha, they find justification for clinging to caste. Thus you are doing a great disservice to social reform by advocating your imaginary utility of the division of Varnas, for it creates a hindrance in our way. To try to remove untouchability without striking at the root of Varnavyavastha is simply to treat the outward symptoms of a disease, or to draw a line on the surface of water To seek the help of the Shastras for the removal of untouchability and caste is simply to wash mud with mud."


Gandhi's comment on Sant Ramji's letter
How can a Muslim remain one if he rejects the Quran, or a Christian remain Christian if he rejects the Bible? If Caste and Varna are convertible terms, and if Varna is an integral part of the Shastras which define Hinduism, I do not know how a person who rejects Caste, i.e. Varna, can call himself a Hindu.

I have certainly meant when I have said: that if Shastras support the existing untouchability I should cease to call myself a Hindu. Similarly, if the Shastras support caste as we know it today in all its hideousness, I may not call myself or remain a Hindu, since I have no scruples about interdining or intermarriage.

 

[nachi naga]

am-bad-cur had a inter-caste marriage and that too a brahmana woman from the highest perceived caste,even though as per scriptures,there is nothing high medium low about any caste.all are equal as they are born equal.by not permitting people in temples,the administartion made a mistake,which has been rectified,after all to err is human.eating together is also an equal right in a public place,which is also,being permitted.its only the person who is serving food,does not have decency while serving,and for that the particular person has to betrained well in his dut of serving food,in a decent manner.evr periyar,made a hue and cry about being ill treated by a brahmana,then he shud have treated the same brahmana who ill treated him,by showing how to give respect and take respect.instead evr rallied in tn,where none of the brahmans were involved in varnasi.had he done the same actions in varnasi,he would have been chopped to bits and his flesh fed to vultures.poor tambrahms are innocent people and saathvic in nature,this asura kunju evr,with likes of am-bad-cur backing who is a buddhist,has played havoc in the lives of hindus of india.

 

[Nara]

A Reply to the Mahatma by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar

Folks, BRA's rebuttal of Gandhi's response is clinical and powerful. He takes Gandhi apart point by point with sheer logic. I want to present his arguments with minimal editing so that everyone can appreciate it if you agree with him, or understand it if you do not. To mount a serious challenge to these ideas the first step is to stop barking and leaving turd blossoms.

===========


Whatever the Mahatma may choose to say, my object in publishing the speech was to provoke the Hindus to think, and to take stock of their position.

First of all, anyone who reads my speech will realize that the Mahatma has entirely missed the issues raised by me, and that the issues he has raised are not the issues that arise out of what he is pleased to call my indictment of the Hindus. The principal points which I have tried to make out in my speech may be catalogued as follows:

1. Caste has ruined the Hindus;
2. The reorganization of the Hindu Society on the basis of Chaturvarnya is impossible because the Varnavyavastha has an inherent tendency to degenerate into a Caste System.
3. Chaturvarnya is harmful, because the effect would be to degrade the masses by denying them opportunity to acquire knowledge, and to emasculate them by denying them the right to be armed;
4. The Hindu Society must be reorganized on a religious basis which would recognise the principles of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity;
5. In order to achieve this object the sense of religious sanctity behind Caste and Varna must be destroyed;
6. The sanctity of Caste and Varna can be destroyed only by discarding the divine authority of the Shastras.

It will be noticed that the questions raised by the Mahatma are absolutely beside the point, and show that the main argument of the speech was lost upon him.

Point #1
The first point made by the Mahatma is that the texts cited by me are not authentic. I confess I am no authority on this matter. But I should like to state that the texts cited by me are all taken from the writings of the late Mr. Tilak, who was a recognised authority on the Sanskrit language and on the Hindu Shastras.

The masses do not make any distinction between texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The masses do not know what the texts are. They are too illiterate to know the contents of the Shastras. They have believed what they have been told, and what they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the observance of Caste and Untouchability.

... to be continued

 

[Nara]

Point #2

(BRA's rebuttal of Gandhi's response continued - very lightly edited)


Point #2
His second point is that these Shastras should be interpreted not by the learned but by the saints; and that as the saints have understood them, the Shastras do not support Caste and Untouchability.

With regard to the saints, one must admit that howsoever different and elevating their teachings may have been as compared to those of the merely learned, they have been lamentably ineffective.

Firstly, none of the saints ever attacked the Caste System. On the contrary—they were staunch believers in the System of Castes. So passionately attached was Jnyandeo to his status as a Brahmin that when the Brahmins of Paithan would not admit him to their fold, he moved heaven and earth to get his status as a Brahmin recognized by the Brahmin fraternity.

And even the saint Eknath, who now figures in the film "Dharmatma" as a hero for having shown the courage to touch the untouchables and dine with them, did so not because he was opposed to Caste and Untouchability, but because he felt that the pollution caused thereby could be washed away by a bath in the sacred waters of the river Ganges.

The saints have never, according to my study, carried on a campaign against Caste and Untouchability. They were not concerned with the struggle between men. They were concerned with the relation between man and God. They did not preach that all men were equal. They preached that all men were equal in the eyes of God—a very different and a very innocuous proposition, which nobody can find difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in.

The second reason why the teachings of the saints proved ineffective was because the masses have been taught that a saint might break Caste, but the common man must not. That the masses have remained staunch believers in Caste and Untouchability shows that the pious lives and noble sermons of the saints have had no effect on their life and conduct, as against the teachings of the Shastras.

That the masses hold a different view of the Shastras is a fact which should and must be reckoned with. How that is to be dealt with, except by denouncing the authority of the Shastras which continue to govern their conduct, is a question which the Mahatma has not considered. But whatever the plan the Mahatma puts forth as an effective means to free the masses from the teachings of the Shastras, he must accept that the pious life led by one good Samaritan may be very elevating to himself, but in India, with the attitude the common man has to saints and to Mahatmas—to honour but not to follow—one cannot make much out of it.

 

[Nara]

Point #3
The third point made by the Mahatma is that a religion professed by Chaitanya, Jnyandeo, Tukaram, Tiruvalluvar (Nara's aside: there is no reason to suppose Thiruvalluvar was a Hindu), Ramkrishna Paramahansa, etc., cannot be devoid of merit as is made out by me, and that a religion has to be judged not by its worst specimens but by the best it might have produced.

I agree with every word of this statement. But the question still remains, why the worst number so many and the best so few. To my mind the only explanation to this question is, that the religious ideal is a wholly wrong ideal which has given a wrong moral twist to the lives of the many, and that the best have become best in spite of the wrong ideal.

The argument of the Mahatma that Hinduism would be tolerable if only many were to follow the example of the saints is fallacious for another reason. By citing the names of such illustrious persons as Chaitanya, etc,. what the Mahatma seems to me to suggest in its broadest and simplest form is that Hindu society can be made tolerable and even happy without any fundamental change in its structure, if all the high-caste Hindus can be persuaded to follow a high standard of morality in their dealings with the low-caste Hindus. I am totally opposed to this kind of ideology.

I can respect those of the caste Hindus who try to realize a high social ideal in their life. Without such men, India would be an uglier and a less happy place to live in than it is. But nonetheless, anyone who relies on an attempt to turn the members of the caste Hindus into better men by improving their personal character is, in my judgment, wasting his energy and hugging an illusion. How can you accept personal character [as sufficient] to make a man loaded with the consciousness of Caste a good man, i.e., a man who would treat his fellow-men as his friends and equals? To be true to himself, he must deal with his fellow-man either as a superior or inferior, according as the case may be; at any rate, differently from his own caste-fellows. He can never be expected to deal with his fellow-men as his kinsmen and equals.

To a low-caste man, a high-caste man can be better or worse as compared to other high-caste men. A high-caste man cannot be a good man, insofar as he must have a low-caste man to distinguish him as a high-caste man. It cannot be good to a low-caste man to be conscious that there is a high-caste man above him. I have argued in my speech that a society based on Varna or Caste is a society which is based on a wrong relationship. I had hoped that the Mahatma would attempt to demolish my argument. But instead of doing that, he has merely reiterated his belief in Chaturvarnya without disclosing the ground on which it is based.