Varna system, which is simply a division of labor. What we are trying to correct is the discrimination and making caste discrimination based on birth.
From: S. Kalyanaraman <kalyan97@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed, December 15, 2010 8:33:42 AM
Subject: [Branded Indian] I suggest that HAF may consider withdrawing their report on caste
Reasons why HAF should withdraw their report on caste
I suggest that HAF may consider withdrawing their report on caste.Â
I will send a supplementary note on the arguments advanced in the CAPEEM case on California Text Books (for 8th grade students) which refer to caste defaming Hindu society and traditions. The same arguments will apply with equal force in asking HAF to withdraw their report on caste.
The reasons are as follows:
To say that reports of socio-economic-political discrimination sporadically reported in India is a human rights problem is an error. It is not the business of any foreign agency, including HAF to interfere in the internal affairs of the state of HIndusthan.
Caste is a remarkable social organization and constitutes the social capital of the nation. Everyone knows that caste is a term derived from Portuguese 'casta' which refers to 'race, breed, lineage' and is a baseless categorization used during the colonial regime, to designate some social institutions in Hindu society. If at all a term has to be used to designate the traditional artisan or industrial guilds, the term should be jaati used in the Indian traditions.
There is a superb concept called ADHIKAARA in Indian tradition. This adhikaara comes from discharging one's responsibility in a chosen issue related to the samajam. HAF no track-record of getting immersed in Hindu samajam to understand how great an institution jaati is as an extended family and providing a community-regulated social security system for the members of the extended family. This is social engineering par excellence for creating social capital.
Â
Methinks HAF lacks the adhikaara to write this report on caste. Hindu samajam will take care of its problems without HAF help.Â
Â
Before talking about human rights HAF will do well to underscore human responsibility exemplified by jaati and strengthening this social institution, this social capital.
Â
HAF report is a mistake and will have undesirable consequences since HAF has walked into the trap of the evangelists calling caste (jaati) a human rights issue. This is what they have been demanding and HAF is seen to be playing jalra to this demand. Most unfortunate because HAF has lost credibility to act as advocacy group for the hindu cause.
Â
In a criminal charge made by some organizations which have been clearly identified as emanating from the Dominus Jesus initiative of Ratzinger, the best defence is to deny mischievous, motivated allegations made by diabolical vested interests such as those operating as evangelist groups. Any internal criticisms among Hindus will be taken advantage, for example, by the rascals operating from colorado as Dalit Freedom Network.Â
Â
For me, jaati is social capital and proud of the samajam which venerates jaati as a social insurance for the members of an extended family.
Â
Instead HAF is damaging the Hindu cause by such half-baked advocacy. So, questions are being asked. What is in it for HAF directors?
Â
I acknowledge the inputs provided by Shri Arvind Kumar. He has dug out the Ambedkar quotes and Bible verses.Â
These are the inputs provided by Arvind Kumar to me as well as HAF which HAF will do well to take into account while withdrawing the flawed report on caste:
On caste, my take is that the source of the idea of untouchables is the Bible. I will explain why I say this at the end but please read through the points I list.
1) The most important texts in Hinduism were written by those who would be considered untouchables by the West (Veda Vyasa, Valimiki, Thiruvalluvar). Other holy people too have come from so-called low castes. e.g.: Kannappa Nayanar.
2) Ambedkar in his book on Untouchables clearly exonerates Hinduism. He clearly analyzes verses in Hinduism and points out that Hindu texts do not contain any advocacy of untouchability. What they have is merely ritual purity.
3) There was clearly no oppression at least till the sixth century. So Hinduism or Hindu society cannot be blamed.
4) Percival Spear points out that what we see in the current form crystallized in the 12th century (thanks to the Islamic invaders).
5) Of the texts cited by the West, Hinduism pre-dates them by centuries.
6) Varna system is NOT oppressive. Proof: Indonesia has the varna system and not the jaati system. The society is egalitarian there.
7) Important sages today are from the so-called lower castes. e.g.: Mata Amritanandamayi. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4172328.stm - this proves that the West considers her to be of low caste but Indians revere her.
8) Gods too have come from the cowherd caste - e.g.: Krishna
9) Muslims (in their mosques) teach that other humans are unclean.
10) There are untouchables in Yemen today.
Excerpt from the article at http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=25634
"Clean your plate if it is touched by a dog, but break it if it's touched by a Khadem [meaning servant in Arabic]." This traditional saying expresses the contempt by mainstream society in Yemen against members of the Akhdam community.
...
After their defeat and expulsion in the sixth century, the remnants of the Ethiopian army that stayed on were reduced to slaves by the native population.
11) There were untouchables in Japan. This system arose soon after Christianity became significant in Japan and faded away when Christianity was defeated by the Samurai.
12) There are untouchables in Islam. Sunday school exam from the website of a mosque in New Jersey:
http://www.imamalimasjid.com/students/exam2006withanswers.htm
But every part of a dog, pig or kafir is najis.
13) Caste is a portuguese word and the Portuguese codified a lot of rules and imposed them on various castes in India. They simply mapped what they had in Europe to India. The British too did this to some extent.
14) To claim that the system of castes is an oppressive system is wrong. If that were the case, why would Reddys or Chettiars be very proud of their caste?
15) Samaritans in the Bible were untouchables.
16) Below are the biblical verses that contain rules on hereditary pollution, indirect pollution and segregation. Stunningly, these rules are similar to what we see today (including in churches). Thus these are the ONLY religious texts that endorse the system. They are also the OLDEST source of the oppressive practice.
Numbers 19
19:16
And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days.
19:17
And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel:
19:18
And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave:
19:19
And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even.
19:20
But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the LORD: the water of separation hath not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean.
19:21
And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his clothes; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean until even.
19:22
And whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be unclean ; and the soul that toucheth it shall beunclean until even.
Here are some from the New Testament showing that 'pollution' is hereditary.
1 Corinthians
7:14Â For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.
2 Corinthians
6:14Â Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
6:15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
6:16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
6:17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you.
6:18 And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty.
Â
From these texts drawn from the Dharma Sutras as well as Manu, the following points are clear :-
(1)Â Â Â That the pollution by the touch of the Chandala was observed by the Brahmin only.
(2)Â Â Â That the pollution was probably observed on ceremonial occassions only.
IV
If these conclusions are right then this is a case of Impurity as distinguished from Untouchability. The distinction between the Impure and the Untouchable is very clear. The Untouchable pollutes all while the Impure pollutes only the Brahmin. The touch of the Impure causes pollution only on a ceremonial occasion. The touch of the Untouchable causes pollution at all times.
There is another argument to which so far no reference has been made which completely disproves the theory that the communities mentioned in the Dharma Sutras were Untouchables.
Kalyanaraman
No comments:
Post a Comment