Liberating Mindspace

overview
1 Liberating mind–space 1
2 Our life and symbols 4
Understanding symbols, 4; A willing suspension of reason, 5; Marriage, 6;
Identity politics and wars, internal and external, 7; Defining mindscapes,
9; A language of liberation, 11; The mother tongue argument, 11; Merit,
12;

3 Symbols in religion 14
The fear of the lord: The beginning of wisdom?, 15; Water into wine, 16;
A way of life: The law, the courts and the evidence, 18; Dalits in ‘Ram
Rajya’, 21; Religious symbols: A time and place, 22;

4 Untouchable, Harijan, scheduled caste, Dalit 26
The outcaste, 27; Harijan, 29; Dalit, 30; Branding Dalits, 32;

5 ‘V’ is for vegetarian and victory of violence 34
Pure vegetarian myths, 34; The monkey argument, 37; Holy cow or
bullshit?, 39; Ritual purity, 40;

6 Violence, mitigation and peace 41
Manufacturing consent, 42; Violence, 43; Violence in language, 45; Of
academic interest?, 45; ‘Violence’ by Dalits, 46; Mitigation and conflict
resolution, 47; Peace, 50;

7 A responsible use of symbols 52
Symbols and mobilisation, 52; Nation ‘building’?, 53; Responsibility, 55;
The process of inclusion and liberative scriptures, 59; The Dalit response,
61;

8 The future, in perspective 63
The Diaspora: Power without responsibility, 64; A life with dignity, and
equality..., 65;

Liberating mind—space
in which language do you think?
Symbolism and imagery in language
anita cheria and edwin

Liberating mind–space: in which language do you think? Symbolism and
imagery in language
anita cheria and edwin; 2001

The responsibility for this paper rests with the authors. We
acknowledge the many ideas shared from discussions with anbu,
asumpta, baskar, rameshnathan, shereen, swami and HRFDL,
the human rights forum for Dalit liberation.

It was originally written for two workshops: Culture, symbols
and mobilisation, and Violence, mitigation and peace. We thank
delegates for their feedback and enthusiastic response.

1
Liberating mind–space
The power of symbols is awesome. The human mind is
moved more by symbolism than by bread and butter issues.
Symbols can be the spring board for concrete action, helping to
concretise and give a fillip to many important processes,
especially when objectives are less tangible and the time–frame
for their realisation is long drawn out. Symbols can lift the
human race to a higher plane of existence or justify power and
oppression—even to the extent of making the subjugated revel
in their slavery, and celebrate their chains as liberation.
Living life through symbols clouds thought, and prevents
rational relationships. Appeals to ‘good’ symbols—of patriotism
and religion—lead to the most horrendous of crimes—of
genocide and mass rape, and are a part of identity politics.
Holistic relationships are not possible while staying rigidly
within identities. Culture and religion, language and symbols,
are to help us in relationships. When they do not fulfill that
primary task, then one should cast them off, step out of their
limitations, and go beyond them to use more appropriate tools to
attain the goal.
Interest and belief in religion, religious history and
spirituality are good only so long as they do not lead to dogma,
bigotry and oppression in the present age. The past should not
intrude on the present to subjugate. Casting away the
inter–mediation of embedded symbols, deconstructing,
demystifying them and recognising their limitations, are the first
steps to reason and to human relationships—of peace with
justice and a life with dignity.
Working from roughly the same material, Arun Shourie and
Shakuntala Rao Shastri come to totally different conclusions.
Arun Shourie studied all the 108 Upanishads, the Gita and the
Brahma Sutras and presents his findings in Hinduism: Essence
liberating mind-space
page [1]

and Consequence; A study of the Upanishads, the
Brahma–Sutras and the Gita, published by Vikas publishing
house in 1979. Shourie’s book is required reading for the riches
of academic inquiry into the contradictions of ‘scriptures.’ It is
also a demonstration of the author’s own state of mind. He says:
Much in these texts is profound. Much in them is sound practical advice.
But much in them is just nonsense... a good thing being carried too far.

Shakuntala Rao Shastri’s book is Women in the Sacred Laws;
Dharma Sutras, Manu Samhita etc published by Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan in 1953. It was written in the context of the Hindu
Code Bill where she makes an attempt, similar to Shourie’s, of a
rather extensive scan of the Hindu scriptures and concludes
The laws of ancient India were so catholic in spirit and all embracing; if
they are taken in their true spirit, they can cover the entire needs of
humanity. At the time when these laws were framed, no country in the
world produced better laws for womanhood nor gave a higher status to
woman in society.

Working from virtually the same material, they both create
very different ideological superstructures. Shourie’s assertion is
true, but normal reaction—including his later position!—is to
contest it. Rao makes us feel good, but is not nearly so effective
nor accurate in addressing and motivating for change. As an
impetus to social reform, they fall short. Nothing, and certainly
not one system, can fullfill the entire needs of any one
society—let alone ‘entire humanity.’
The usual reaction is to contest these versions of ‘truth’ and,
at certain times, even go to war to ‘prove’ that one is better than
the other. Another option elaborated in Jain philosophy, is that
the different versions are all true.
In Jain philosophy, reality is Naya, and the approaches to it is
Nayavada. It admits to different versions of reality and that all
are true, within a context. Naya is a particular opinion from a
particular viewpoint, and does not rule out others. It
acknowledges therefore that one naya is a partial truth since
reality is complex.
page [2]

The system has four main classifications: the modal, the
objective, the practical and the realistic, and seven sub-classes:
the universal–particular, the class point of view; the particular,
the standpoint of momentariness, the verbal, the etymological
and the ‘such like.’
The importance of this system is that it explictly mandates
tolerance, understanding and respect for other views. It shows a
way of reconciling conflict. It appreciates the relativity of the
different aspects of reality. Reality being complex, one
proposition—no matter how divine, inspired, or
profound—cannot express the nature of reality fully.
In this book we look at two of the most potent systems of
construction of the mindscape—language and religion. We give
the view of those affected adversely by these constructs, and
equally valid explanations and viewpoints from science to
religion and mytholody. The objective is to prove how easy it is
to create very potent symbols, and logical scientific reasons to
support any position—even highly absurd and ridiculous
systems of thought such as ‘holy, spiritual, divine, and revealed’
religion and seemingly ‘neutral’ ideology. We argue the case to
go beyond such limiting mind–space constricting constructs.
When such diverse systems can be created from the same
material, why not make ones that will be liberating for all? It is
not the ‘voice of the voiceless’ by any stretch of imagination.
But if you listen long enough, you might just hear echoes of it.
Our assertions will be disturbing for many. So we have opted
to give references as footnotes for easy cross–checking, rather
than as end–notes. This book needs to be read in totality, and in
context, else the potential for misuse is great, specially by
selectively quoting to reinforce and legitimise biases. It may be
reproduced in full when required, without permission. Selective
quoting is expressly and explicitly forbidden.

page [3]

2
Our life and symbols
Understanding symbols
One of the basic assumptions about the human race––indeed
one of the things we pride ourselves about, as a race—is that we
are rational animals. While the second—being animals—is not
in dispute, the first is certainly open to question.
Anyone who has passed class eight chemistry knows the
fundamentals of photography. It is formed by a series of dots, of
different colours. This is a fact that is very widely known. Yet,
an insult to the photograph of our loved or respected ones
inevitably brings out the ‘irrational’ in us.
Similarly, it is easy to buy a man’s honour—if we know how.
People who will not kill for any amount of money can easily be
persuaded to kill large numbers for a piece of cloth—if it is a
national flag—or a piece of metal: if it is given as a medal.
There are many ‘vegetarians’ in the army. Those who will not
tell lies, no matter how high the price, routinely do so for the
‘honour of their country’ and are called ‘successful diplomats.’
For the defence of our flag or nation, demagogues routinely
invoke symbols to make us do what we otherwise would never
even contemplate. All these, while they certainly have a logic of
their own, can be seen by an impartial observer to be irrational.
These examples can be multiplied manifold. Positions defended
unto death such as one’s language, country, religion or ethnic
group being better than another’s, all fall in this same mould.
The height of irrationality is waging war for peace. Some say
that war is the only means available to secure peace in certain
circumstances. But these circumstances arise from aggressive
policies in other spheres. An aggressive foreign policy leads to
military conflict. To prevent war we must forgo aggression in
other spheres of life, including the use of violence in personal
relations.
page [4]

Physical symbols are idols and icons. The process by which
these otherwise benign articles become potent totems, being the
focus of the aspirations and concentration of the emotions of the
majority of people is something that all cultures have developed
to an art—for without these totemic symbols, the indoctrinated
yearning for the ‘higher’ or spiritual in man remains unfulfilled.
This yearning and unfulfillment is needed to create dependency
on the group and the person who controls it. The feeling of
inadequacy and incompleteness is indoctrinated so much, and
for so long, that they are valued social virtues under the labels of
‘modesty,’ ‘humility’ and more. Any self–confident person
becomes a threat and, instead of being admired, is hated and
ostracised.
Symbols and their meaning are ever evolving. Except for a
few conservative organisations—the army for instance—the flag
has by and large lost its significance. The new symbols of power
are the cars and other personal belongings. Interestingly, one of
the oldest symbols has retained its position, though many others
have diminished: the home. The right to defend the home,
including by inflicting death, is still recognised by law.
Symbols attain an almost mystical power over indoctrinated
believers since they become the focus and repositories of a
concentration of emotion, and psychological desire for
identification. Believers, in varying degrees, identify with and
integrate themselves with their symbols, or what the symbols are
identified with. The symbols come to embody the aspirations,
the essence and at times, even the institution itself, in miniature.

A willing suspension of reason
Symbols are metaphorical interpretations of reality. To relate
to life based on metaphors is to mistake the map for the territory.
Unfortunately, most human experience falls under this category.
It is very few who experience reality, and even then it is open to
question which reality they experience. Reality is what is
interpreted, and is not necessarily an absolute.
page [5]

This is a philosophical point of endless discussion, through
millennia, and has not yet been resolved. The theory of relativity
has almost decisively put it permanently into the metaphysical
realm. Human beings, as Tagore put it, prefer to have symbols
lead them to reality, rather than experience reality itself. These
symbols then take on a life of their own, and become stuffed
with many more meanings than the originator could ever have
meant. Those familiar with ‘literary appreciation’ or ‘art
critiquing’ know this phenomenon of ‘reading between the lines
on a blank page.’ The symbol then gets many meanings attached
to it.

Marriage
In India, marriage is arguably the most sacred institution.
Apart from fomenting religious wars and strife, no religion
recognises the marriages of another—effectively making the
overwhelming majority of the world illegitimate. People,
fortunately, are more rational, and do accord that dignity.
Leaving aside for the moment the symbolic nature of marriage
itself, and its social significance, let us turn our attention to its
most visible and potent symbol: the thali or the mangalsutra.
Every educated Indian knows the origin of the custom. It was a
device to show possession. In the case of marriage, the
ownership of the man over the women. When buying
livestock—cows and bulls—too, the mangalsutra was changed.
Despite the somewhat lowly origins of the custom, it is only
the very courageous who will do away with it, despite being
‘liberated’ women and men. The symbol has gone much beyond
its origins and has become the focus and concentration of the
institution. The institution has sanctified its symbol. In this case,
the institution has become so identified with its symbol, that the
institution itself is considered incomplete without its symbol.
Though a strong person can agree to a marriage without a
thali, most would feel their marriage incomplete without it. The
break up of a marriage or a divorce is symbolised by the
breaking or removal of the thali. Though breaking the thali in
page [6]

divorce is definitely a traumatic event, even highly educated
people are traumatised by even its accidental breaking. They
consider it to be an ominous omen of a break up of their
marriage, perhaps by death. It is amazing that breaking a string
can put a person through such emotional turmoil. Unless
conditioned to behave so, it will not have such a reaction. In
other cultures, who have different symbols, they would find it
difficult to really understand why it should be so—just as one
would wonder why people would want to die over the ‘disgrace’
of a cloth falling to the ground, though it is called the ‘national
flag.’ If the earth—or at least the motherland—is holy, why
should falling on it be a disgrace?
There are other ‘symbols’ of ‘progressive’ society, the most
notable one being the ‘common civil code’ or ‘gender.’ They can
be deconstructed by the discerning reader. Is the legal position
of serial, short term sexual relationships—as in the numerous
trysts with prostitutes, some of them religiously sanctioned, and
‘affairs’—better than polygamy? Does the devdasi system not
condone incest—yet it is justified in the name of culture,
tradition and religion. Without getting blinded by labels, one
should look into the content and address the causes of the
problem. At present, the proposed solutions are not for the stated
problem—though they use very progressive vocabulary.
Ideas for better gender relations are better received when the
symbol of ‘daughter’ is invoked. Chauvinists who bitterly
oppose ‘women’s rights’ and want ‘wives to know their place’
suddenly become vociferous defenders of the ‘human rights’ of
their daughters. Same thing. Different symbols. Different
reactions.

Identity politics and wars, internal and external
In the many engineered riots, identities are freely invoked.
The identities are to justify the crimes done by one section ‘us’
against the other ‘them.’ In the language riots in Bangalore, ‘us’
was the Kannadiga, and the Urdu speakers were ‘the other.’
During the riots over the waters of the Cauvery, ‘the other’ was
page [7]

the Tamil. During other times it is the Muslim, the Christian... Is
language or the place of birth or the religion the only thing that
unites a person in solidarity from Kolar to Belgaum, but divides
Kolar from Dharmapuri—less than a tenth of the distance? Is it
still valid today when nationality has become a sub–set of the
family with one child a citizen of US, another of Australia,
another of New Zealand?
There is no difference in the brutality of the glorified ‘war’
against the demonised enemy and the ‘police action’ against
one’s own citizens. Both are oppression and slaughter. Global
hegemonic states call wars against defenceless small nations
‘police action’—implying rather arrogantly that it is an internal
matter. Is the mining of Nicaraguan ports during ‘peacetime’ an
internal matter of the United States of America?
Is the oppression of Dalits an internal matter of only Hindus?
Can Dalits not fight for their liberation? Interestingly,
‘Mahatma’ Gandhi says that Dalits have no right to fight for
their liberation, placing this gross human rights violation as an
internal matter of Hindus—knowing fully well that the Dalits
are not Hindus. If this position is carried to the Indian freedom
struggle from the British, then freedom could only be granted by
the British at their discretion, and Indians had no right to it since
Indian independence was a internal matter of the British. And
India is British.
This was the patriarchal position on domestic violence
also—it is an internal matter of the family and there should be
no ‘interference.’ How many parents have sent back their
daughters to be roasted alive due to this wrong perspective on
internal and external? Aren’t these ‘sacred’ marriages often
between the closest of relatives, of the same caste, class, region,
language... and how humanely do they behave towards each
other? Is it an internal affair... or, as some endlessly agonise, is it
a foreign hand?! Yet we frown on choice marriages. It is a
strange land where marriages based on love are considered bad.
Identity politics uses external threats to consolidate one
identity, but actually uses more violence against its own. Despite
page [8]

all the hype about ‘losing’ Hindus by conversion to other
religions, more female Hindus are killed by their own relatives,
as foetuses, infants or brides, and therefore are ‘lost’ to Hindus
every year than by conversions in a decade. So also for other
religions.
Appeals to identities are for solidarity, often during times of
guilt. This massacre of women is hidden by terming it a ‘family’
issue. If it is brought out, it is suppressed by using any identity
possible—ranging from family to language, caste, religion or
nationality—to enforce loyalty and silence on the victims,
reinforce their powerlessness, disempower and isolate them. At
the same time, the identity chosen is narrow enough to exclude
the one’s who offer solidarity and will delegitimise external
support or justice.
This book will be much more comfortable reading if we used
the terms ‘Brahmin Social Order’ or Brahminism rather than
‘Hindu.’ That allows us to comfortably define the problem as
external to ‘us’ and a problem of ‘Brahmins’—as if targeting
Brahmins, and Brahmin bashing is the solution. The issues are
for all—a human rights issue, as was aparthied—and for all to
address.

Defining mindscapes
Language itself is a system of symbols, and it is here that the
most distorted, deep–rooted archetypes are defined and invoked.
Symbols without physical manifestations have a greater
stranglehold over mindspace. Language thus becomes the
building block and architect of mindspace. Language is the
prism through which we perceive the world. Good becomes bad,
and bad becomes good, right here. The literal meaning of a word
conveys only a part of the meaning. A word carries with it a lot
more social and cultural baggage, and has many nuances.
The burning of innocents by the church during the inquisition
was with the verdict: punish the sinner as gently as possible,
without spilling blood. The ministry of war becomes the
ministry of defence, killing is sanctified if it is for a piece of
page [9]

cloth and a scrap of metal, and justified on the basis of parochial
identity. A mosque becomes a ‘disputed structure.’ Eco–friendly
lifestyles become primitive and savage. Displacement becomes
development. Exploit is progress. Slaughtering innocent people
becomes ‘collateral damage.’ Rape becomes ‘patriotic duty’ and
‘secular.’
Languages are idea systems, and should be holistically
approached. In many languages, the word for enemy and
non–tribe member is the same. Most pacifist peoples do not
have a word for war in their language. The terminology we use,
the language we think in, all determine our action. It is no
coincidence that in the rigidly structured feudal era, languages
had to follow strict rules. Even poetry, meant to give expression
to our deepest and most sublime thoughts, had to follow metre,
cadence, and rhyme!
The invention of transformational generative grammar by
Noam Chomsky during the age of the hippies is a logical
outcome of this process. Transformational generative grammar
builds the ‘rules’ of a language from the language itself, from
the way it is spoken, and does not impose external rules on it.
The purpose of these ‘rules’ is to describe a language rather than
impose restrictions on it.
A parallel from the development sector. In the feudal era,
humans were made for the systems, not systems for humans.
Banking had its sets of rules. If you did not fit in, tough luck.
But that system soon collapsed due to internal contradictions.
Though most of the money was lost to the big capitalists who
deliberately did not repay their money, that is called ‘non
performing assets.’ When the poor do not repay, they are called
‘defaulters’ and harassed. That is only because the system did
not fit their life. Development organisations have proved
decisively that when finance systems are made for the people,
they have a 100% recovery rate. This also demonstrates the
injustice of language, unjust social relations and social ordering.
page [10]

A language of liberation
By consciously changing our language we can change our
behaviour. Calling our gardener with the prefix ‘Mister’ will
impel us to deal with him very differently. At least one person
canceled his subscription to the American magazine Time when
it referred to ‘Negroes’ with the prefix ‘Mister.’ The very usage
‘upper’ and ‘lower’ caste conjures up an image of superior and
inferior. Dalit on the other hand identifies who the ‘oppressed’
are making identification of the ‘oppressor castes’ mandatory.
For this reason, oppressor caste fundamentalist parties refuse to
use the term Dalit, and Dalits use the term ‘oppressor’ caste
rather than ‘upper’ caste.
The mother tongue argument
No discussion on language will be complete without touching
on the ‘teaching–in–the–mother–tongue’ position. The mother
tongue has become a symbol of assertion.1 The teaching–in–the–
mother–tongue language position comes from a Brahminic
position, and in its modern incarnation comes from the
imperialist Hindi—Hindu—Hindustan slogan.
Language was and continues to be the major vehicle of
power. All leaders in a democratic world need to be good
speakers. Language determines the way ideas are formulated
and expressed, how persuasively and how powerfully. The
victory of advaita over other equally valid philosophies is due to
the oratorical and literary skills of one person from south
India—Shankara. Ambedkar is a national leader because he
wrote in English. Mahatma Phule is less known because he
wrote less in English.
The dominant have tried to prevent others from learning any
language. The first step was to declare a language holy, and
therefore the preserve of the priestly caste only. Islam and
Buddhism are exceptions, because they were explicitly protests
against the priesthood. The hollowness of the scripture—
mythologies were exposed when common people learnt the
1 This needs a longer discussion. S Anand’s paper Sanskrit, English and Dalits, EPW
24 July 1999, explains it in detail.
page [11]

‘holy’ languages. The dogmas of not using scriptures against
themselves were invariably pronounced with the invention of
printing and the spread of education. The next step was to
impose the rules of the holy language on the language of the
people—Latin on English, Sanskrit on all Indian languages,
including the Dravidian.
When even that has failed, the desperate action is to prevent
Dalit access to the contemporary language of power, in this case
English. Keep them in the regional language in a rapidly
growing global village. Let the priesthood, which earlier were
the brokers between god and man using the holy language, now
become the brokers between Dalits and the world using the
language of power.
The right to a language other than Sanskrit had to be fought
all the way to the roots of social structuring and power
relationships. It included the self–respect movement, the
anti–Brahmin, anti–Hindi, and the rationalist movements and
even a movement for a separate Dravidastan. To get away from
identity politics and imperialism is no easy task!
Globalisation is opening up new spaces. To move into these
positions, English helps. The denial is to prevent Dalit entry into
positions of potential independence and power—at least long
enough to ensure that the oppressor castes can move in first. The
mother tongue is identified with loyalty and duty and is a test of
patriotism. Should pseudo–values still bind? There are
indications that Dalits are not being fooled.

Merit
‘Merit’ is an instrument of denial. This is an argument that
evokes a great deal of passion. But beneath the label, lies a
curious reality. ‘Merit’ is a criteria only for the Dalit. It is not so
for others. Granted for a moment that a narrowly interpreted
definition of ‘merit’ would mean that there should not be
reservations for Dalits in education, jobs or promotions, let us
apply that criteria to all.
page [12]

The Dalits are called landless agricultural labourers to deny
their millennia old indigenous knowledge and actual
contribution to the production cycle. Most of the food is grown
by Dalit landless farmers. Most of those who do not get enough
food are Dalits. Surely they ‘merit’ getting the food they have
grown. But it is the elite, who do not and cannot grow food who
have the most food security. The mind control system created is
so powerful that the Dalits, instead of meriting the food first,
believe that the non-Dalits are doing them a favour by letting
them have the leftovers!
Through the ages ‘merit’ has taken various forms. True to
form, ‘science’ has given ‘scientific’ justifications for it, and
religion has given divine sanction to it—all to make it the
‘natural order of things.’ Now no one can claim merit based on
birth. But for a long time that was precisely the case. The divine
right of kings is based solely on it. So is the ‘sacred merit’ of the
Brahmin to be ritually pure. In each case, a complex ideological
superstructure was built to justify it—including reincarnation
and karma. Birth as ‘merit’ was accepted to maintain status quo
or perpetrate hegemony.
The moment it becomes a criteria for affirmative action, there
is a hue and cry. Then, and only then, does it lose its ‘rational’
underpinnings. Then it is no longer a criteria for merit, but for
demerit! If the powerless get some ‘credit’ for instance money,
then they are the ‘noveau rich.’ If they do not speak in the lingo,
they are ‘uncouth’... But if they agree to be subordinates, and do
our dirty work—work we will never do, and ensure our children
never will—that is ‘dignity of labour.’ Literally damning with
praise.
In their moments of lucidity people know that birth is an
absurd benchmark of merit. A few decades from now our
children will wonder how getting a few marks more in
mathematics or biology can be ‘merit’ or having a few Rupees
more can ‘merit’ better services or quality of life—merit enough
to make a difference between life and death.
page [13]

3
Symbols in religion
It is a very rare person who always remains within a religion
all the time. If questioned they invariably reply, correctly, that all
religious dogma was only for a particular time, and is context
specific. Yet when confronted with challenges to these same
practices in the form of religious symbols, the same sane people
become an insane mob. Though religion does invoke the
strongest passions, most people function outside the boundaries
drawn by religion most of the time, and almost all of the time
when it comes to relationships.
We all redefine our religions to suit the present needs. When
confronted with uncomfortable facts we often defend our pet
beliefs by saying that our religion ‘actually is not like that.’
Shakuntala Rao Shastri does it all the time brilliantly—and
correctly—in her book Women in the Sacred Laws; Dharma
Sutras, Manu Samhita etc. Love and justice are the core human
values. The burning of Staines and his two children... the
genocide of the Americans... conversion... terrorism...
apartheid... dowry... no intercaste marriage but clandestine
trysts, rape and prostitution... we spring to the defence of our
respective religions. The more enlightened spring to the defence
of all religions. But ask the perpetrators they will defend
it—equally well—on the basis of religion.
The danger of religion is that it appeals to archetypes that are
so deep-rooted, that no matter how ‘secular’ a person, when the
religious puppet masters—the priests and moral police—invoke
these symbols, all semblance of reason vanish. Religion and
religious symbols are the most potent ideological tools of Dalit
subjugation. Dalit religion is denied its own identity. It is from
Hindu religion—from outside the Dalit identity—that
untouchability gets its legitimacy.
page [14]

The fear of the lord: The beginning of wisdom?
The most powerful symbol is ‘god.’ Ambedkar could prove
that gods of the oppressor castes have feet of clay. Theoretically,
of course, there cannot be a ‘god’ of one religion—all gods
should belong to all creation. God should be in the whole
world—not only in the temples and mosques. But in reality, and
practice, gods are made by men and women for parochial
material reasons. The easiest way to encroach on land is to build
a place of worship there— nevermind whether it is a footpath or
a playground.
Most of us believe that gods are good, always good and only
good. A closer look reveals a different reality. They knowingly
commit incest with their mother, 2 premeditatedly abuse
hospitality to outrage the modesty of their hostess3 kill a person
from ambush,4 have innumerable orgies and generally do most
of the immoral things possible. A classic example is Ram killing
King Vali—with whom he had no dispute. Ram conspired with
Sugriva—an usurper—to kill King Vali. Conspiring with Ram,
Sugriva challenged Vali to a single combat. Ram then hid behind
a tree and killed the unsuspecting Vali. A clear case of a ‘god’
committing pre–meditated murder, in the most cowardly
fashion.
Christianity calls as ‘god’ a being who is a proven liar
according to its own mythology. ‘God’ tells Adam that if he eats
the fruit of the tree of knowledge, ‘on that very day you [Adam]
will surely die.’5 ‘Devil’ tells the truth to Eve, the woman, that
‘you will be like god, knowing right from wrong.’6
On eating the fruit of knowledge, what the ‘devil’ tells is
shown to be true—and acknowledged by ‘god’ saying ‘man is
2 The Devi Bhagwat, quoted by Ambedkar, Riddles in Hinduism, p 89. This book is
required reading to see how much our mind is conditioned to be blind to the
peccadilloes of the ‘gods.’ True to patriarchy in shifting the blame, the proposal
comes from the mother.
3 By asking Anusuya to serve them food in the nude. Ibid., p167.
4 Ibid., riddle of rama and krishna, p326.
5 The Bible, Genesis 2:17.
6 Ibid., 3:05.
page [15]

become as one of us.’7 The woman, Eve, is then considered
‘deceived’ by the devil.8 If one believes the story then, at the
very least, telling ‘white’ lies is justified—so god does not
always tell the truth. Equally painful is the other option—what
the scriptures tell is not true.
Traditional Christian justification is that death was unknown
before this and death came after eating the fruit of knowledge.
Not true. Perhaps the awareness of death came with knowledge.
Death was already present, for that is why the Tree of Life also
grew in Eden. Even after eating the fruit of knowledge Adam
could still become immortal—which is why a frightened god,
who wanted to keep man in subjugation, banished Adam ‘lest he
put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and
live forever.’9 This story makes sense only if it is situated within
its Sumerian origins of the epic of gilamesh and the rivalry
between Enki, the god of wisdom symbolised by a snake, and
Enlil, a dictatorial conservative, who wanted to keep man as a
slave.
Another defence is that the myth of Enlil is not in the
‘scripture.’ True, but then neither is the fact that death was not
previously present. That is an extra scriptural interpretation not
even as valid as the interpretation of a god frightened of Adam’s
potential immortality. In Christian belief, the honest ‘devil’ is,
ironically, the ‘deceiver’ while the liar is the ‘good lord!’ In a
telling display of the change, and acknowledging the truth in
what the ‘devil’ said, god makes clothes for Adam and Eve. The
right to clothing is a privilege monopolised by the elite from
time immemorial. Dalits still do not have the right to certain
items of clothing.
Water into wine
After a peg or two, many of us in the irreverent money scarce
days of youth would often wonder why Jesus Christ did not turn
water into whisky, and with some longing want even some water
7 Ibid., 3:22.
8 Ibid., I Timothy 2:14.
9 ibid., Genesis 3:22.
page [16]

to be turned into wine. Christian dogma has long held to the
literal truth of the ‘miracle of turning water into wine.’ In this
case the symbol has not only distorted, but has also hidden,
reality. ‘Turning water into wine’ takes place regularly in
Christian churches as a matter of course.
The first initiation rite for every Christian is baptism, when
water is sprinkled on the head. The next is the ‘first holy
communion.’ From that ritual onwards, Christians have the right
to partake of the ritual dinner i.e. break bread and have
consecrated wine. That is the meaning of ‘turning water into
wine.’ Simple when explained, but distorted in our
consciousness. The power of symbols blinds us and does not let
us make the connection. This blinding by symbols causes a
suspension of all reason.
The ‘miracle’ is that Jesus defied the entire priesthood and
the orthodoxy to let the non–priestly castes and gentiles
[non–Jews], who were earlier ‘untouchables,’ become
priests—and got away with it. The many ‘miracles’ in the Bible
regarding Jesus are the promotion of ‘untouchables’ from being
let into the religion right up to being the supreme pontiff.
Opposition to this is evident right from the time of Saul–Paul,
who gives a subordinate position to women, and says10 explicitly
that ‘salvation comes to those who believe: to Jew first, and also
to the Greek.’ The orthodoxy was trying to reimpose caste
hierarchy quickly. Of course, when they wanted more converts,
they also said ‘neither Jew nor Greek, bonded nor free, male nor
female, all are one in Christ Jesus.’11 This validates the basic
point of religion having nothing to do with the other world, and
everything to do with cornering resources of this one.
Christians also justify Jesus as the ‘prince of peace’ saying
that if he wanted to bring war, he would have ridden to
Jerusalem on a horse not an ass. The interpretation is without
factual basis. The kings of Israel were taken out on the ass at the

10 The Bible, Romans 1:16.
11 The Bible, Galatians 3:28.
page [17]

time of ascending the throne—as in the story of David’s son
Solomon. Interpreting symbols out of context is absurd.

A way of life: The law, the courts and the evidence
The law is an ass. Does that make the supreme court the
supreme ass? The courts that administer and interpret it are no
better. The supreme court of India has held that Hinduism and
Hindutva is ‘a way of life’ as distinct from a religion. All
religions, all ideologies, material or religious, are. Is ‘love your
enemy’ a way of life or a religion? Is a life system with its own
particular science, maths, language, rituals, laws regarding
practically every stage of life and every minute of the day a
religion or a way of life? Then would Islam not qualify?
The supreme court has held that Hinduism is ‘sanatan’—
unchanging. Why then is there so much conflict between the
myths? Why the rise and fall of so many gods? How come sati is
not sanctioned today? How come widow remarriage is
promoted? Why has the concept of chastity changed so much
over the years? In the most telling demonstration of the supreme
court divorce from reality, it has held that ‘god’ can hold
property, effectively keeping most of the common property away
from the Dalits and the traditionally oppressed communities.
Some other parameters are also used. One is that Hinduism
does not have a single book. Neither does Christianity, which
has between 66 to 73. Hinduism has some more. So does
Judaism. Does that mean that neither are religions? Another
criteria is that Hinduism does not have a single ‘holy’ day.
Christians have Sunday—which, incidentally, is not true for all
Christians—Moslems have Friday and Jews have Saturday.
The weekly holy day is a feature of religions that follow the
solar calendar. Hinduism [as does Islam for its festivals] follows
the lunar. Therefore the ‘day of the week’ does not really
apply—though different sects and castes have special rites... for
Sani [Saturn] on Saturday, others on Mondays, full–moon,
new–moon, eighth day [ashtami], ninth day [navami]...
page [18]

This seeming anomaly comes from the historical context,
which the Brahminic supreme court cannot accept by its very
nature, structure and composition. Ambedkar makes a
convincing case of Dalits being Buddhists, and the Brahmin
reaction being the cause of the discrimination. Brahminism was
recreated and repackaged as Hinduism when Buddhism
threatened to wipe out Brahminism as the people took to the
simple Buddhist rites and practices and turned away from the
Brahmins who were notorious for beef–eating and rather loose
morals regarding sex, specially with the women—including
wives—of other communities.
Then the Brahmins formed a coalition with other castes to
wipe out the Buddhists [the present day Dalits]. Hinduism is an
alliance of four castes, and sub–castes. Each caste is, in effect, a
nation and has its own ‘holy days’ often following the lunar
calendar. In each of these days, the other castes are scrupulously
kept out. This, and not the pseudo–reasons given by the supreme
court or the apologists, is the real reason why ‘Hinduism’ does
not have any one weekly ‘holy’ day.
Arun Shourie, a leading Hindu intellectual, a member of
parliament and a union cabinet member, has written on
Hinduism after studying the Upanishads, the Brahma–Sutras and
the Gita. The position has extra importance because this is not
an ordinary member of parliament, but in the Rajya Sabha. The
membership of this house is not decided by the people, but by
the party leadership. The party that proclaims itself the saviour
of Hindutva, Hindus and Hinduism feels that he is indispensable
to represent its position.
Arun Shourie on Hinduism____________________________________
The 74 page Chapter 8,12 is titled:
Boxes: Empty and black
He has an entire sub–section titled:

12 Arun Shourie, Hinduism: Essence and Consequence; A study of the Upanishads, the
Brahma–Sutras and the Gita, Vikas publishing house, 1979; p239 to 313.
page [19]

The verbal vomit.13
Which he concludes rather rhetorically:
Is this revelation? Is it knowledge? Is it even reportage? Or is it
just verbal vomit?14
In another place15 he calls it, again in a sub–section,
A truth that is false.16

Having such sub–sections is an important indicator of the
seriousness Shourie attaches to his position. These are not
tucked away in obscure sentences within paragraphs, but
highlighted to pull the readers eye and attention to them. These
are not casual statements, but deliberately thought out positions.
He explains each in detail with a wealth of evidence, brilliant
analysis and synthesis drawing on various authorities.
The purposes of the Hindu tradition as well as its consequences are
very much of this world.17 The ideological superstructure of ancient India
represents one of the most highly articulated, one of the best worked out
hegemonic systems.18
The society and the tradition were tolerant in matters that did not affect
social order... the diversity of viewpoints and practices was itself useful—it
gave the people the illusion of freedom... while tradition was very tolerant
of such diverse practices, it was very intolerant in matters that might affect
the social order. Indeed, it was the same society which encouraged or
tolerated such diversity on superficials which also laid down minute rules
to govern the most private aspects of the lives of individuals and couples
and groups... the Upanishads themselves are not adverse to laying down
rules ... about when they should bed each other and so on. Along with
these prescriptions went a system of powerful sanctions... the rules and
sanctions do not exemplify a tolerant society—rather they point to a

13 Arun Shourie; p281.
15 Arun Shourie; Chapter 10, Consequences III: Cacophony, repressive tolerance and
fideism; p360.
17 Arun Shourie; p1. Of course, so is every other religion.
18 Arun Shourie; p2. Possibly one of the best, but other religions are not far behind!
page [20]

society that is determined to make unthinking conformity the second
nature of its members.
But when it came to dealing with a school that cut at the very roots of a
system that had been built up for hypnotising the populace, when it came
to dealing with the Charvakas, for instance, the device was not debate but
condemnation, not argument but wholesale abuse, not persuasion but
ostracism.19
What about the Shudra kings, saints and poets? Shourie, with
his usual brilliant academic mind, goes on to prove that
What these exceptions testify to is not tolerance but cooption. 20

While this reality does seem to validate the rather convoluted
logic of the supreme court, the verdict was given without taking
into account the context nor contemporary reality. Over the
years, this rather unholy alliance has evolved into a
religion—outside the realm of science and rational thought.
Like other religions, it too uses pseudo–science, and partial
science, to justify its irrational positions. There is a concerted
attempt to remake it into a monolithic religion with one god and
one book. But the days of one god, one language, one king, and
one country are over. Even talk of the ‘universal’ is passe.
Multiverse is the accepted reality.
Marxists and Nazis made desperate efforts in the twentieth
century to turn a material ideology and alliance into a holy
religion complete with trinity, scriptures, Messiahs, high priests,
and thought police, to take it out of the realm of scientific
inquiry and rational thought, but failed.
Dalits in ‘Ram Rajya’
The Dalit quest for mobility is not denied on the basis of
human rights, but on the irrational call to religion. Try take
shelter in another religion, then that is ‘conversion’—and the
entire irrational weight of the state comes down on them.

20 Arun Shourie; p363
page [21]

Conversions by Dalits are for upward mobility. Those seeking to
convert Dalits are often fundamentalists.
The urge to convert others comes from a desperate juvenile
hangover of ‘my father is stronger than your father’—in this
case: the more the converts, the less irrational my religion. To
prevent Dalits from liberating themselves there is a call to the
‘Hindu’ identity. This conveniently shifts the issue from the
rational plane of addressing basic needs and human rights to the
irrational plane of emotions and identity politics.
If a Dalit tries some social or economic mobility, then it is
termed adharmic, quoting Krishna’s words to Arjun in the Gita
3:35 to enforce the unjust caste rule: better do your own caste
duty poorly, than another’s well. How these ‘positive’ words trap
and subjugate! And why this injunction? Is it to protect the
livelihoods of the weak—something like the protection given to
small scale industries? Not at all. It is for protecting one’s caste
position. Krishna’s words are a paraphrase of Manusmriti 10:97.
To quote the full verse:
One’s own duty, (even) without any good qualities, is better than
someone else’s well done; for a man who makes his living by someone
else’s duty immediately falls from (his own) caste.
How does this work in ‘Ram Rajya’ the mythical Hindu
Utopia? Ram killed Sambuka—an unarmed man, again without
warning—who was doing one of the most non–violent acts
possible: meditating.21 Killing without warning even goes
against the caste rules of a Kshatriya—the caste of Ram. So this
is a case of a god doing something adharmic, and very clearly
anti–Dalit.
Yet by calling them ‘god’ their character and conduct
becomes impeccable, and even to point out these rather
embarrassing acts of theirs—though mentioned in the ‘holy
scriptures’—becomes emotionally charged, and becomes ‘the
devil quoting the scripture.’ Terming mythology as scripture is
to keep them beyond the pale of rational enquiry.

21 Ambedkar, Riddles in Hinduism, riddle of rama and krishna, p332.
page [22]

Religious symbols: A time and place
Many who scoff at astrology believe in god. The language
used to justify the ways of god, and astrology, are the same: we
do not know the ways of god or astrology. We can always justify
both after the event—astrology is brilliant at predicting the
past—but they have consistently proved useless in the public
sphere of the present or future. The many who claim to be
reasonable and of scientific temper believe in god—finding no
contradiction. As god is a matter of faith, beyond and outside
reason, religion and priests also become so. The effects are not
in heaven, but on earth.
When everything was done by a few people, these people had
the monopoly over knowledge, language, science, drama, poetry,
literature... Most of these were closely linked to the places of
worship, because the ‘community centres’ became the market,
the town hall and yes, the temple or church. The natural fallout
was that they were [literally] attached to religion, and therefore
above question. Now that is no longer so.
Many of these are taken out of the realm of religion. Rational
inquiry is possible. The opening of more and more fields to
rational inquiry is the true separation of the religious and the
secular. It is then that astronomy—where everything is open for
questioning—can grow and separate out from astrology—a
mixture of science and faith. Due to the rapid explosion of
knowledge, and the inherent irrationality of the human race,
more and more of the secular is also getting pushed into the
realm of mystery, mystification and ‘faith.’ Ironically, the new
religions with their own high priests, jargon, and mumbo jumbo,
are science and the market. They invoke the same passions when
their assumptions are questioned: witness the reaction to the
questions on the Sardar Sarovar Dam or nuclear energy.
Everything becomes absurd in extremes. Equally absurd is to
consider everything absurd. Human experience in this world is
so rich, that there will always be different equally valid truths.
These competing ‘truths’ need to be tested and adapted for each
situation. By pushing some into the realm of religion makes
page [23]

them untestable. Sean O’Casey, an Irish dramatist, has a point
when he says:
There is no reason to bring religion into it. I think we ought to have as
great a regard for religion as we can, so as to keep it out of as many
things as possible.
Now–a–days, no one believes in Thor or Isis or the ‘historical
reality’ of Juno’s exploits. Yet Vikings, Egyptians, Greeks and
Romans took their religions and gods very seriously. All the
present ‘gods’ will undergo the same transformation. That there
are some ‘good things’ in religion is incidental—rather like
astrology having some overlap with astronomy. However strong
the belief, it should not intrude into other social arenas to the
detriment of genuine human rights and values. There is no god
who is not partial or unjust—as revealed in the religion’s own
mythical–scripture itself. The greatest oppression—apartheid,
slavery, untouchability, patriarchy—takes place due to religion.
All religions—and gods—need to be taught that there is no need
to create hell in this world to go to heaven in the next.
Many Hindus protested the demolition of Babri Mosque. One
even went to the extent of saying that ‘I do not know if you will
build a temple there, but one thing I do know: even if a temple
was built there Ram would not be there.’ These were
people—devout—who knew when to transcend the boundaries
of religion and move to its true purpose. It just depends on
which language we think. American poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox
put it succinctly when she wrote
So many gods, so many creeds,
So many paths that wind and wind,
While just the art of being kind,
Is all the sad world needs.
The stories in the myths had just a single point to illustrate.
The creation story in the Bible was written for a slave society,
where the Jews kept even fellow Jews as slaves. The point was
to prove that everything had a time and place, and even god took
rest on the seventh day. So even the slaves were to be given a
day off. The story of Ram is to illustrate the obedience of a son
page [24]

to the father and a brother’s loyalty. The rest are embellishments
to keep listener interest, and in some cases to justify powerplays,
hoping that the legitimacy of the original will rub off.
When we talk of following the ‘true religion,’ what is being
said is to follow the core value and discard the rest. But the
problem is that this creative interpretation cannot be done for
‘scriptures,’ It can only be done for myths. Symbols have a habit
of becoming iron cast.

page [25]

4
Untouchable, Harijan, scheduled caste, Dalit
The right to name is the right to define, and therefore to
control. The dominant claim this right over all others. This is
instinctive—the ‘nicknames’ in school by children with no
knowledge of the theory—and also deliberately manipulated.
The oppressed on the other hand assert their right to name
themselves. Most nations rename themselves on becoming
independent states. As peoples grow in assertiveness and
visibility, the right of others to define them gets proportionately
reduced. International covenants protect the right of people’s to
their own names. The name is an accurate discription of what a
people think of themselves—and also of what others think of
them.
Describing a politically or socially disadvantaged group is
not an easy task. The voiceless and the invisible in society have
a similar position in language also. For a long time, due to
gender power relations, ‘man’ was said to ‘include’
woman—though physically and linguistically woman includes
man. Now women are no longer invisible. With the success of
the women’s movement, gender specific and gender bias free
terms such as spokeswoman, spokesperson and chairperson, are
coined and used. [There is still an invisibility of children, and
that is evident in language also.]. Similarly, the right to a distinct
identity for Dalits needs to be gained through campaigns and
field action.
At first the name used to describe the disadvantaged group
may be neutral and even scientific [Negro]. But the negative
connotations and bias get grafted onto it, and the term itself
becomes derogatory [Nigger]. Then liberals, still from the
oppressor class, seek to give some sugar coating to the linguistic
representation [coloureds]. This is faintly apologetic, like the
‘unmentionables’ of the Victorian era.
page [26]

After this comes a stage when it is attempted to turn the
reference to a neutral term [Black, similar in usage to White or
Brown]. Up to this stage, the definition is done by the
oppressors. In subsequent stages, the community names itself.
Black was transformed into an identity for assertion. Now they
are no longer ashamed of their identity, proudly affirm it and
reclaim their distinctiveness.
‘Untouchable’ is analogous to ‘Negro,’ and ‘coloured’ to
‘Harijan.’ Dalit, first used by Mahatma Jyothirao Phule, is
chosen for assertion. What the future holds must be left to them,
and will evolve from ground reality. The periodic terminology
change is a reflection of the perception of the peoples’
concerned, and social change. Society should recognise the
aspirations of various marginalised and excluded sections, create
the socio–political space for them and accept their definitions of
themselves.

The outcaste
The Dalits were earlier characterised as ‘untouchables,’
‘unhearables’ and ‘unseeables’ by Hindu society. They are
classified as ‘Scheduled Castes’ by the Indian state to be eligible
for the constitutionally mandated affirmative action provisions.
In British times they were called ‘depressed class.’ This
classification is arbitrary, and is changed due to political and
administrative whims and fancies. Politically powerful groups
manage to be included to the detriment of the genuinely
oppressed. Classification is heavily biased towards subsuming
Dalits into the Hindu fold, by excluding those who do not
agreed to be classified as Hindus.
The attempts at subsuming started in the mid–1800s. In the
attempt to talk for all during the Indian independence
movement, there was an attempt to bring the ‘outcaste’ into the
Hindu fold. So they were called ‘panchama’ meaning ‘fifth
caste,’ though the Manusmriti, the Laws of Manu, is quite
specific in Chapter 10, verse 4 that ‘there is no fifth.’
page [27]

This was a strategy to deny Dalits the spaces that were
opening up in the transition to a democratic state as evidenced in
the Poona Pact, and Gandhi’s offer of ‘anything short of
franchise and political representation’ to the Dalits. Fortunately
Ambedkar stood firm. Dalits got the right to vote, stand for
elections and reserved constituencies. Symbols were used freely
during this struggle. Fortunately, by then democracy had become
the ‘natural order of things.’ The rallying power of ‘equality’ and
‘democracy’ was more potent than the
‘poor–man–willing–to–die–for–his–cause’ image of the
fasting–unto–death Gandhi.
How does Hinduism define the outcaste and what is their
position there? This is the creator Brahma himself, quoted by
Shourie. The comments are Shourie’s, and the emphasis.
Chandogya, 5.10.7 ‘those who are of pleasant conduct here—the
prospect is, indeed, they will enter a pleasant womb, either the womb of a
Brahmin, or the womb of a Kshatriya, or the womb of a Vaishya. But those
who are of stinking conduct here—the prospect is, indeed, that they will
enter a stinking womb, either the womb of a dog, or the womb of a swine,
or the womb of an outcaste.‘
Even the womb of an outcaste stinks, does it? It is the same, is it as
the womb of a dog or a swine? And all this from the mouth of Brahman
himself? And yet we pride ourselves on our tolerance!22

The Manusmriti, gives precise definitions of who the Dalits
are in chapter 10.
10.10 (Children) begotten by a priest (in women) in the three (lower)
classes, or by a king (in women) in the two (lower) classes, or by a
commoner (in women) in the one (lower) class—all six are traditionally
regarded as outcastes.
In case the meaning is not clear, verses 10.16 and 17
helpfully explain that they are ‘born against the grain.’ It is
further linked to reincarnation and ‘karma.’

page [28]

12:54 Those who commit major crimes spend a great many years in
terrible hells, and when that is over they experience the following
transmigrations:

12:55 A priest killer gets the womb of a dog, a pig, a donkey, a camel, a
cow, a goat, a sheep, a wild animal, a bird, a ‘fierce’ untouchable, or a
‘tribal.’

Without beating about the bush or belabouring the point,
according to Hinduism therefore, the Dalits are bastards,
crossbreeds and criminals. Even the most charitable explanation
is that they have doubtful legitimacy. Can anyone really fault
Dalits for their search for dignity outside the Hindu identity?
When they do so, they are denied affirmative action
provisions—proving that the more you are caught in the web of
poverty, the less freedom there is, in this case not even the
freedom of religion.
The others who want a distinct identity for themselves
outside the Hindu religion are the Veerashaivas, the Kodavas,
the Adivasi, and—hold your breath—the Ramakrishna Mission.

Harijan
The Dalits were called Harijan—’children of god’—by M K
Gandhi who tried to humanise references to them by changing
the terminology, and worked for the eradication of
untouchability. Today, ‘Harijan’ is derogatory and is banned in
official usage. This is in strange contrast to other religions,
where being called children of god is a label worth working
towards. It is one of the best indicators that the euphemism
‘Harijan’ has a new level of meaning, gathered some cultural
baggage and is converted into a symbol—and not a
much–sought–out–for one either.
Euphemisms remain euphemisms for a very short time. New
euphemisms have to be invented as soon as, or even before, the
present ones become too explicit, and therefore embarrassing. It
is natural that ‘Harijan’ becomes a derisive term, since it
becomes too explicit and the original stigma gets attached to it
page [29]

also. It is better to wipe out untouchability rather than create
new euphemisms.
Gandhi’s idea of calling Dalits as ‘Harijans’ was certainly a
great leap forward in those days within his limited context. To
keep on using it is to look backwards. It was a term clearly
chosen as a part of his liberation process of humanising the caste
system. Yet a few decades later, those so designated ask if they
alone are the ‘children of god, and the rest the children of the
devil’—and revile the man. Dalits do not want to be called
‘children of god’—a title they trace to the obnoxious devdasi
days of forced ritual prostitution of their ancestors, their
illegitimacy of birth within it, and a conspiracy to keep them
within the caste system.
At the grassroots, Gandhi’s idea of assimilation is no longer
accepted by Dalits, who wish to carve out a distinct identity and
separate space for themselves. Gandhi was speaking for the
Dalits, though the term Harijan itself was suggested by one.
Today Dalits want to speak for themselves. Just because it was
used before is no reason for it to be used in perpetuity.

Dalit
Dalit means ‘oppressed’ or ‘broken.’ It goes beyond
economic poverty to include the poverty of social capital. Caste
is both capital and infrastructure. It is not restricted to the social
sphere. Caste connections are analogous to the ‘old–boy’
network. It is much more deep–rooted, embedded as it is in
archetypes, primordial fear, and sub–conscious indoctrination
right from birth. Now Dalit is a form of assertion analogous to
‘black’ as in ‘black power.’ ‘Black,’ similarly had its voyage
from ‘nigger’ to ‘people of colour’ through many others to
‘African–American.’
Dalit has narrowed down to mean only caste oppression, and
now refers only to those administratively classified as
‘scheduled castes,’ and sought to be subsumed into the Hindu
fold—which is why Dalit Christians, Dalit Moslems and Dalits
page [30]

who have changed to religions other than Hinduism are not
included in the ‘scheduled caste’ census figures.
The hierarchical caste system based on degrees of purity and
exclusion is a Brahmin invention and concept. Like ‘Hindu,’
Dalit is a created identity for majority formation, and includes
within it many castes and sub–castes. Unlike ‘Hindu,’ ‘Dalit’ is
an identity for social justice for all based on positive values.
Ironically, Dalits are oppressed based on a larger external
identity foisted on them—Hindu. The oppressor caste attempt to
include Dalits within the dominant identity is to make Dalits
invisible, and to define the oppression and human rights
violations as an ‘internal’ matter.
The Dalits as a community are struggling for existence. In the
Dalit struggle for survival, they have to admit they are
Hindus—bastards—to access affirmative action provisions of
the Hindu state. How much more violence can one community
inflict on another? The violence of defining Dalits as bastards
has horrible implications for Hindu society too. Because if the
Chandalas are the product of illicit relationships between
Brahmin women and Shudra men, then every Brahmin woman
of Manu’s time has had an illicit relationship with a Shudra
man.23 In a society that prides itself on caste purity that is more
of a stigma for Brahmin women than a Shudra man. And that is
only for one of the many ‘untouchable’ castes! What a price to
pay for assigning ignoble origins to others.
The ongoing subsuming process is to deny the Dalits their
special identity, and include them into the Hindu fold, though
Hindu scriptures themselves admit to only four castes, and that
the Dalits are ‘outcastes.’ This ‘inclusion’ into the identity is to
exclude them in every other realm possible—social, economic,
cultural...24 The idea that Dalits should follow Hindu rules or
take the Hindu identity is as absurd as Christianity claiming that
pagans are also ‘Christians,’ Islam claiming infidels are Moslem,

23 Ambedkar, op cit., p225.
24 For a detailed analysis of this process see our paper The political economy of
self–rule.
page [31]

or Jews claiming that gentiles are Jewish and then imposing
their rules of exclusion on the unfortunates. The success of
Brahminism is in indoctrinating many Dalits to believe that they
are Hindus.
The examples no doubt arouse emotions and passions. It
shows how potent the symbolism of god and religion are in
forcing a state of suspended reason. An example from a
non–religious arena would allow more rational comparison.
Would the rules and identity of hockey be imposed on chess?
Would the rules of one school be imposed on another, or its
identity on the students of another? Absurd? Yes it is. Minds are
relatively more open in the secular realm, and closed in the
religious.

Branding Dalits
When three people were passing a village, they saw some
sheep. The poet exclaimed, Oh! there are black sheep here. The
scientist said, what we know is that there is at least one black
sheep here. The logician said, ‘to be exact, what we know for
sure is that half of one sheep is black at this time.’ In human
relationships we follow the first person. Differentiation in the
positive is for Dalits, and in the negative for the oppressors. In
the negative, it is the reverse.
Many have apprehensions on the quality of schools in the
Madhya Pradesh school on demand scheme, because the
teachers are selected by the village community, and most of the
demand came from the Dalits and the other socially excluded
sections. In practice, the teachers are appointed by the MP
government. There is no relaxation in the criteria for
recruitment. Being blinded by stereotypes, anything for Dalits
has come to mean sub–standard.
If a Dalit excels in anything, it is an exception. But if a Dalit
is caught taking bribes, then ‘all Dalits are like that.’ But a
corrupt Brahmin does not make all Brahmins ‘like that.’ When
the Brahmin excels then ‘Brahmins are like that.’ This
page [32]

attribution of the positive is a factor of power relations and
visibility.
When ‘harijans’ and ‘SCs’ refuse to accept that they are
bastards of Hindu society, they become Dalits—self–respecting
human beings. For the Hindu nation they become trouble
makers, terrorists and criminals. When Hindu symbols—lotus,
tiger, peacock, saffron on the flag, the temple in
Tamilnadu...—are adopted as symbols of the state, that is
‘secular.’ When the Dalits claim the blue Ashoka Chakra in the
middle, it is casteist and there are attempts to remove it from the
flag. When a Dalit points out that the judiciary does not have
representation across the social spectrum that is caste
bias—never mind the Narmada judgment would be different if
there was even one Adivasi or oustee on the bench. When a high
court judge ‘purifies’ his chamber with the polluted Ganges
water because his predecessor was a Dalit, that is his religious
right. When the non–Dalits have government corporations
named after their leaders, those leaders become ‘national
leaders.’ When the Dalits want government transport
corporations named after their leaders it is incitement to
violence.
Who are we kidding?

page [33]

5
‘V’ is for vegetarian and victory of violence
One of the most vicious symbols in the propaganda against
the Dalits is the myth of ‘vegetarianism’ being ‘non–violent’
and, as a ‘logical’ outcome, proportional to ritual purity. It is
supported by the pseudo–scientific establishment with many
reasons—most, if not all, of them false—and naturally so since
most of these scientists are products of Brahminism, and science
is a handmaiden of the powerful. Not all science is scientific.

Pure vegetarian myths
Those who are herbivorous are considered to be more ritually
pure than others. The hierarchy of ritual purity is determined by
the purity of one’s ‘vegetarianism.’ This ‘purity’ is flaunted by
defining others as ‘non–’ suggesting that ritual purity and
violence is the standard to be worked towards. Usage of the
terms ‘non–Dalit’ and ‘non–Adivasi’ in this document is also to
bring out the violence in this exclusionist definition.
The most ritually pure are those who ingest only milk and
milk produce or only fruits. The less pure are those who eat flora
grown above the ground. Third come those who have food
grown below the ground. Fourth come those who eat small
animals such as rabbits, chicken and goats. Finally come the
least pure, those who eat beef, often from a dead cow. Dalits
belong to the last category, and need to do this as a ritual task of
Hinduism.
Vegetarianism is more healthy
Not true. The people in the countries with the longest life
expectancy are overwhelmingly omnivores. Supposedly
herbivorous India has one of the lowest life expectancies—
comparable with sub–Saharan Africa, which is omnivorous.
Herbivorous diets, health and longevity are not inter–related.
page [34]

Vegetarianism feeds more people
Not true. India, which claims to be herbivorous, has the
largest number of poor in the world. The fact is that most
Indians are omnivores. India has enough food to feed all its
people. Adequate food for all is a matter of distribution and
egalitarian, democratic societies—of relations of production
rather than a factor of production. Hunger is related to power
rather than production.
Vegetarianism is non–violent
Not true. Plants are living beings. If we should not eat the
‘poor voiceless animals’ then how much more voiceless and
helpless are the plants? Animals at least can run and scream.
Plants can do neither. Their contribution to the regeneration of
oxygen and environmental health is priceless. The myth of
vegetarianism not killing has been convincingly disproved by
modern science proving that plants live, and modern technology
that can measure the emotions and response to stimuli of flora.
Let us apply this to the hierarchy of ritual purity.
· The most ritually pure.
In modern terminology, these people are guilty of foeticide.
Seeds, whether of plants or of humans, are potential life.
Embryos more so. Milk is the most refined form of blood.
Those who drink milk—whether directly, or as butter, ghee
[clarified butter], curds, in tea or coffee, in milk chocolate or
biscuits...—deprive the calves of their mother’s milk. Transfer
this characteristic to human beings. If a man prevents a child
from drinking its mother’s milk, but takes it from the mother for
himself for coffee or tea, what would his position in society be?
Is that not what the milk drinkers do? Is it not child abuse, and
breaking the sacred bond between mother and child, and of life
itself? Is it not infanticide? We have not included people who
eat sprouts. That is equivalent to eating animal foetuses or
babies. Yet these people have the highest ritual purity!
· Those who eat flora grown above the ground.
Many of course, do not have an all milk or all fruit diet. They
supplement it with flora grown above the ground. But the pain
page [35]

inflicted on the plants is equivalent to torture. Let us take the
case of eating greens. Modern technology tells us that the pain
that a plant has when its leaves are broken off is equivalent to
breaking the fingers of a human being. Many such fingers are
broken for one meal of one ritually pure person, of the second
grade. Let us not forget that these plants are captive, to have
their hands broken off every single day of their lives. They
suffer terrible torture, but are not allowed to die.
How ‘non–violent’ is this? With our present technology we
know the comparable pain: it is equivalent to cutting off pieces
of an animal for our food—without anesthesia. Picture this
non–violent treatment of flora on to fauna, and the violence
becomes evident: cutting off a kilogram of flesh per day from a
living cow, without anesthesia or after–care.
Just because the trauma is not visible, it does not mean it is not
there—it is the same technique we use to blind ourselves to the
violence on the oppressed.
· Those who eat food grown below the ground.
Still Brahmin, and ritually pure, some consume flora such as
ground–nuts, potatoes and carrots. These people are less ritually
pure than the above two categories. The difference here is that
they do not torture the plant. The killing is swift. But many
plant lives are still needed for their every meal.
· Those who eat small animals such as rabbits, chicken, sheep
and goats.
Ritual pollution starts here. But these are people who kill only
one life for one meal of five to 20 people. This is the first time
that we come to an inverse ratio of lives killed or maimed, to
life sustained.
· Those who eat beef, often that of a dead cow.
Dalits belong to this category, and need to do this as a ritual
task. This category of people take at most one life for a meal of
about 500 or more people. People in this category are polluted.
Some Dalits eat the meat of a dead cow. This means no life for
one meal of 500 people. Yet this most non–violent diet is
supposedly the cause for Dalits becoming untouchable,
unseeable and unhearable though Manusmriti, 5:131 itself says
page [36]

The meat of an animal killed by dogs or killed by carnivores or by aliens
such as ‘fierce untouchables’ is unpolluted.
The ‘scriptures’ themselves are ambiguous—and tied up in
knots. The Manusmriti contradicts itself twice in less than 25
verses, in the same chapter.
Manusmriti 5:32. Someone who eats meat, after honoring the gods and
ancestors, when he has bought it, or killed it himself, or has been given it
by someone else, does nothing bad.
Manusmriti 5:48. You can never get meat without violence to creatures
with the breath of life, and the killing of creatures with the breath of life
does not get you to heaven; therefore you should not eat meat.
Manusmriti 5:56. There is nothing wrong in eating meat, nor in drinking
wine, nor in sexual union, for this is how living beings engage in life, but
disengagement brings great fruit.

The monkey argument
For some time the argument was that humans were meant to
be herbivores since the intestine was long like a deers or a
cow’s. That pseudo–scientific argument vanished when it was
pointed out that the comparison should be with monkeys—who
are canibalistic! Why dont these same people use the argument
for polygamy or group marriages? After all monkeys and deer
and cows—in fact most animals—are known for that. So that is
the ‘rule’ of ‘nature.’ Animals do not have bride burning, nor
sati, nor widow abuse.. why not use examples to liberate instead
of for control and subjugation? People take positions first and
then use science and other ‘neutral’ academic tools to justify
them.
Dalits do not seek to make carnivores of all beings. Yet the
‘vegetarians,’ true to their ingrained violence, are not satisfied in
foisting a dehumanising identity on Dalits but are bent on
forcing their diet on the Dalits and others as well. Is it to ensure
their steady supply of milk? Why is it that those who campaign
for animal rights never express even solidarity with those
working for human rights, specially for the abolition of
untouchability? Why is it that the ranks of animal rights activists
page [37]

have a disproportionate number of conservatives and
reactionaries? Is it co–incidence or is it, like ‘merit,’ another
label to further oppress Dalits? Tigers, after all, are carnivores!
We all love and protect wildlife—don’t we elect the same
bunch to parliament and legislature every time? Non–Dalits and
non–Adivasis have superficial concern for animals since the
animals will always be totally dependent. Not a shred of this
concern is for fellow humans because of the potential for
equality.
The point is not to make a case for a new ideology with
Dalits becoming ritually pure and Brahmins becoming the
untouchable. For survival, we drink our mother’s blood for nine
months, and then her milk for many more—totally disregarding
the status of her health. For survival, we need to eat food. When
eating is for living, it is fully justified. The unfortunate, totally
unnecessary, aspect is ascribing purity and ahimsa,
non–violence, to it. What is criminal is ascribing violence and
pollution to it inversely, and perversely.
Those who know their religious mythology, sorry scriptures!,
well enough will jump to assert that there are some verses or
‘slokas’ that do take precisely this position.
Manusmriti 10:104. A man who eats the food of anyone, no matter who,
when he is on the brink of losing his life is not smeared with evil, just as
the sky is not smeared with mud.
Sorry about the gender bias! Presumably women are also
included. Manusmriti 10:105—8 then goes on to give examples
of justified cannibalism, including eating one’s own son, dogs
and beef.
But then, why is untouchability scripturally sanctioned and
religiously practiced? It reinforces our basic point that religion
and morals are elastic. In the public sphere, they are for
oppression rather than liberation. With the present level of
knowledge available to use, the rational diet is different. The
need, the cost of regeneration and carrying capacity should be
the principle of consumption. All other justifications are
superfluous, unnecessary and bigoted.
page [38]

Holy cow or bullshit?
Some supposedly revere the cow as a goddess. Ironically,
though they enjoy her milk—the most refined form of blood as
we have pointed out—on her death it is the Dalit who grieves
for her and completes her last rites. The last rites are reserved
for the kith and kin. While the Hindu may revere the cow and
worship her as a goddess, it is the Dalit who takes care of her as
the mother.
There is an echo of this denial on the death of a Brahmin too.
The touch, the sight, the noise and even the shadow of the
non–violent person is considered polluting. Distances have been
determined for ‘pollution from afar.’ This ritual pollution has
gone to such an extent that all people are ritually impure at least
some of the time. Prayers in at least two religions give thanks to
god ‘for being born as a man,’ in addition to being born within
the priestly caste. Women are polluted during their
menstruation—up to a week a month—and kept in the
cattle–shed in some places by ‘upper’ caste, ‘upper’ class
sections of society. All widows are polluted. This absurd notion
of ritual pollution has become so ridiculous and ingrained that
certain parts of the human body, and the entire left half of every
human body, is impure!
Sadly, the Brahmin is also the sufferer in this ‘competitive
purity.’ When a Dalit dies, she is kept in the house, and the
entire family grieves. But a dead Brahmin is ritually polluted
and therefore untouchable. All the contribution made throughout
life is forgotten, and the relatives are ritually bound to get rid of
the carcass as soon as possible. The entire family is polluted.
Even hearing of the death of a relative in a distant land is
polluting.25 Even the Brahmin clans that do the final rites for
others are ‘untouchable’ Brahmins. A high price to pay for ritual
purity. Others cannot do the last rites because nobody else was
allowed to learn Sanskrit, and the chants had to be in Sanskrit. It
is an indication of the remnants of humanity that the Brahmins
pay some respect now–a–days.
25 Manusmriti, 5:75.
page [39]

Ritual purity
Ritual purity is directly proportional to the degree of violence
rather than non–violence. The more non–violent the diet, the
more polluted the person. It is no coincidence that the worst
forms of violence rate highest in ritual purity. Given this
blood–sucking diet, is it any wonder that most money lenders in
India have a predominantly milk–based ‘vegetarian’ diet? So
was Adolph Hitler.
It is our ‘untouchability quotient’ that we project on others. In
certain parts of Keralam, the ‘untouchables’ are given food and
water in earthen plates and tumblers. They also eat separately.
When some visitors came to see the director of a training centre
in Bangalore, he took them for lunch to the dining hall. There
they were served separately on earthenware. The guests were
very angry, believing that they the ‘upper castes’ were being
treated as ‘untouchables.’ When keeping the plates back, all five
of them ‘accidentally’ broke the plates and the tumblers.
From the training centre’s perspective, these guests were
being given the highest honour. They were served separately
because the others had to take their food from the counter in a
buffet system. The institutional value of the earthenware is
priceless. Those plates were taken out only for very special
occasions. They were made from the mud taken out of the
foundation of the centre, and made in the centre itself.
The scripture—myths are context specific. The tradition of
Ram and Sita being siblings is to accord them the greatest
honour and purity, and acknowledge them as gods, just like the
pharaohs of Egypt. When projecting incest onto that, the
ignorant go berserk... and with it the craziness of ritual pollution
being ascribed to inter–dining and inter–marriages, but not to
rape and casual ‘ritual’ sex of the devdasi or jogin systems...
The ‘insults’ are in the mind, a projection of their own
‘untouchability quotient.’
page [40]

6
Violence, mitigation and peace
We have been conditioned to think of violence, peace and
mitigation with some very potent archetypes, subconscious fears
and primordial instincts being evoked and manipulated. These
links are not necessarily true. Now let us attempt to redefine
these much maligned terms, keeping in mind that language is
used as much to conceal as to reveal, and is a tool for
domination. First let us see what this means in practice, for the
Dalits. To study the real impact of a system—in this case
language, the system of ideologically ordering symbols—one
must study its impact on the lives of those most adversely
affected by it.
Society is ordered so that in each system there is no waste.26
A system becomes unsustainable the moment that it creates
waste. So a community, as its consumption increases, increases
its area of control for production and waste disposal. The area
needs to be large enough to support it [called the carrying
capacity], and for the waste to be fully degraded before the area
needs to be accessed again for production.
Till the nuclear age, there was the concept that ‘waste’ would
be biodegradable within a finite time, often a fraction of the
human life–span. Therefore, only waste–disposal was the issue.
The time factor could be ignored. In the nuclear age things
changed. The life of waste extends over 20 or more millennia.
Therefore, not only the area, but also time has to be factored in.
Thus we have ‘waste management.’ The parallels in human
relations are more than a few.
In human relations, those in the less powerful strata are
forced to absorb the waste of the powerful. They are the human
waste absorbers. The more powerless the person or community,
the more toxic the waste to be absorbed. The Dalits are at the
26 We detail the process in our paper political economy of self–rule. See also Thorstein
Veblen, Theory of the leisure class, 1896.
page [41]

bottom of the human waste absorption chain. They have been so
for millennia. Human consumption systems are constructed to
make a smooth pipeline for this expropriation, where the
powerful take the best and pass on the waste down the line.
When people willingly accept this waste absorption role, then
the systems function smoothly, and ‘all is in harmony.’

Manufacturing consent
People are made to willingly accept this role by many means,
the most important being mind–control by religion. Other
instruments of subjugation play a significant role with education
being the most used tool of indoctrination. The dominant need
the oppressed to internalise oppression, because status quo and
social order relies more on mind–control rather than on bullets.
Once this system of expropriation stabilises, then various forms
of material or religious ideology—of mind control—are brought
in to ‘convincingly demonstrate’ that it is a ‘natural order of
things’ and ‘divinely ordained.’ Both of this puts the exploitative
system outside the pale of rational enquiry, sane response, or
gradual social change. For the exploited and the excluded, the
only way to equality, liberty and fraternity is to become
‘outlaws’ or ‘outcastes.’

... one of the best articulated hegemonic systems.... if devices such as
cooption were discovered and manipulated consciously in any system
then our system has had a better chance of being this single instance
than any other... Manu, Chanyakya and the lot would outdo a Machiavelli
any day...

it is in this system that elaborate, intricate and mutually reinforcing
device—rituals, respect for authority, details of family life, social
intercourse, an academic syllabus that emphasised rote memorisation
and swallowing rather than critical examination—it is this very system
which developed the devices that would be most effective in making
individuals internalise the basic premises of the doctrine... and it is this
very system which came to realise that once the notions have been
page [42]

successfully internalised by the subject, there is no need to be overtly
intolerant. Indeed, then tolerance is not only just permissible, it is prudent.
What is the need to overtly and continuously manipulate a man after
you have conditioned his thought, after he has come to mouth your views
as your own?27

Ideological systems depend on ignorance for the people to
accept their subordinate status. The Church was against the
translation of the Bible and spread of literacy. The infamous
Manusmriti prohibited the spread of knowledge with harsh
punishments. Awareness of slavery brings with it revolt.
Ambedkar coined his slogan ‘educate, organise, agitate,’
because, in his own words, ‘tell a slave he is a slave and he will
revolt’ and Adam became ‘ashamed’—for with wisdom he knew
his lowly status.28
Violence
Attempts by the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes to break
away from this syndrome of deprivation and improve their lot and claim
what is rightfully theirs, are often the principal cause of the atrocities that
are perpetrated on them. There is a lack of sensitivity on the part of the
police and the district administration ... The law enforcers themselves, in
many cases, fail to act promptly or collude with the other side.
Prime Minister P V Narasimha Rao; Inaugural, meeting of
chief ministers, New Delhi, 4 October 1991.
‘Violence’ does not mean there was no conflict before. When
costs become greater than benefits—when Dalits are pushed to
the wall and survival itself become a question—’violence erupts’
and people refuse to absorb the waste. This disrupts the entire
system. The ‘trouble makers’—the Dalits—are forcibly kept in
those functions by mind control and other forms of subjugation.
Attempts by people—in this case Dalits, but also for women,
Adivasis...—to climb out of their waste absorption roles is the
cause for the violence let loose on them. The legitimate
27 Arun Shourie; p364–365. This indoctrination is true for all ideological systems,
material or ostensibly ‘spiritual.’
28 Laurence Gardner, Genesis of the Grail Kings.
page [43]

democratic right and demand for equality thus becomes highly
subversive.
To mitigate this ‘violence’ thus means the creation of an
entirely new system of social relations that does not depend on
waste absorption, and where the dignity of a few does not
depend on degrading the many. It is tragic that anti–Dalit
violence is because Dalits want to wear slippers and upper
garments. The roles, oppression and violence have been so
internalised, that to hurt a Dalit woman—the Dalits among
Dalits—violence has to be so intrusive as to be multiple rape by
many over time. In contrast, the oppressor caste women are so
shielded, a similar intensity of degradation will be felt by
someone spitting in their direction.
A community on the edges of survival and on the verge of
extinction will need to be aggressive and highly conscious of
their space and its defence. When the community moves from
survival to sustenance to surplus with self–esteem, rights and
leisure, the more space for dissent and dignity it can accord its
subjects. The more removed a community is from the edge of
survival, the more tolerant it can be.
People rebel when communities well into leisure economies
retain and perpetuate the defence of space as in a survival
economy and manipulate symbols to use people to retain their
leisure. For this, pseudo–crises are artfully invented so that the
people continue in their waste absorption roles in the face of an
‘external threat.’ This can be only for a short, emotive, high and
reality soon catches up in a backlash of ‘depression.’
Violence against the Dalits is when they want to be
sustainable—in an agrarian economy that means land—to
punish and discipline them from wanting to break out of waste
absorption. In most cases, Dalit land owners are killed, specially
those who have newly acquired land or have made their land
productive and capable of supporting them.
Land is tied to identity and sustainability. Culture is as tied to
land and as location specific as morals. Land restoration
becomes a prime objective and prerequisite for restoration of
page [44]

peace and justice. Just as time needs to be factored in for solid
waste disposal, with rape becoming a tool of enforcing waste
absorption, the time for cleansing becomes generations.
The Dalits have long tolerated the sexual exploitation of Dalit
women. Now they realise they don’t have to, and have begun to
resist. This explosion has to be contained. Therefore, just like
waste management, we have the new terms of ‘conflict
management.’ Social exclusion and economic marginalization
has concretised into social and economic exclusion, with new
terminology such as ‘two–track’ growth being commonplace
and gaining acceptance. As George Sorros warns, however,
there comes a time when the pain of the periphery will affect the
centre.
Violence in language
The violence against the oppressed comes with even their
caste names becoming disparaging terms. The demeaning usage
of the caste name to command even senior women and men by
oppressor caste children adds to the violence. But it is deeper
than that. Even proverbs—supposedly repositories of a societies
wisdom— disparage the Dalits.
The symbols of the Indian state are explicitly Hindu and
exclusivist—the lotus, tiger, peacock, saffron on the flag, the
temple in the official logo of Tamilnadu..—these ‘national’
symbols clearly define the nation as a ‘Hindu’ nation.
The Dalit in school is confronted with a syllabus that
degrades their community and everything that is theirs. Of
myths that are called scriptures that refers to them as monkeys
and demons. Of being defined as untouchable, of others being
‘upper’ caste... how much dignity is there in such a childhood?
How much such violence can a young mind bear?
Of academic interest?
The violence inflicted by the ‘academic’ community as a
matter of course can be seen by simple role reversal. There have
been studies on the effect of rape during social conflict on Dalit
women by Brahmin men. Let us change that around. Would the
page [45]

same academic institution propose to study the violence on the
Hindu woman when her husband comes to her after raping a
Dalit woman? Would that study be done by a Dalit man?
Do the men have a purification ceremony? What is the
trauma that the woman undergoes when she becomes a
‘co–wife’ of a Dalit... or does she feel her husband is a hero
come home from war? Does domestic violence increase or
decrease before and after the caste war and rape? These are
areas of valid academic inquiry.
But it is not an abstract academic question alone. The
implications of this goes far beyond simplistic rationalisation
and into minefields such as appropriation of knowledge and
penetration. When Dalit academics exist, why should the body
of knowledge be transferred from the Dalits to the oppressor
castes?
The blindness and the violence are seen with role reversal.
Yet academic institutions get away with it regularly—and are
perceived to be ‘neutral.’ The role reversal brings out the true
meaning of, and violence in, ‘the highest academic tradition.’

‘Violence’ by Dalits
The dominant media projection of Dalits is as a violent
community and Dalit women as weak. In some ways yes, not so
in others. This does not show how they are the victims of
systematic violence everyday—they are all defined as bastards!
Are Dalit women weak? Can non–Dalit women take the load of
sexual abuse—individual and collective—as the Dalit women?
Can non–Dalits take being defined as ‘bastards’ and still be
‘non–violent?’ Even those Dalits who are aware of this
definition of them are non–violent. Non–Dalits are aware of this
strength—which is why they go to such perverted extremes to
break the Dalits as a community and target the women in
particular. Manu was terrified of them, which is why he wrote so
perversely about them.
Analysis of atrocities on Dalit women show that Dalit women
are assaulted below the neck and above the knees so that they
page [46]

are no longer able to do their reproductive function. No more
Dalits will be born from their womb nor nurtured at their
breasts. Dalit and Adivasi women hurt just as much as others.
As a community they bear a lot more than the others. They bear
it because they have to, not because they are ‘stronger.’
Some non–Dalits, disgusted with the mass rape of Dalit
women asked them why they did not ask their men to reply in
kind. The Dalit women’s reply is illuminating and humbling.
Sir, we have undergone that hell. We don’t want anyone else to go
through that. And those poor women [the ‘upper’ castes!] are kept like
rose flowers in their home. They cannot take it. Even if we accidentally
spit in their direction it hurts their very soul.
Violent? What do you think?

Mitigation and conflict resolution
Though man is defined as a social animal, man is definitely
not a sociable animal all the time. There has not been a single
year in history when the human race was free from conflict. The
most obvious conflicts are large scale murders of the other group
by the parties to the conflict. These ritual murders of manunkind
are also sanctioned and sanctified by a code signed by nations
on the usage of war.
Fortunately, most conflicts are not as devastating nor as
destructive as war, though there are many bitter conflicts. Good
sense often prevails and sagacious leaders do not let such
disputes spill out over into the streets, nor become
emotionalised. Once an issue becomes emotionalised, then
resolution becomes difficult. Passions will have to run their
course before reason prevails. The resolution of the dispute over
the sharing of the Cauvery waters is difficult even though it is
between people of one country, and even one region.
The resolution of a conflict assumes that there is one already.
In most cases it is so. The sagacity of the leaders is measured by
their ability to spot potential disputes and ensure that they do not
materialise. But this is not spectacular, and in the present system
of vote catching, emotionalising issues is a better paying
page [47]

preposition in the short-term. It is a general rule that in the case
of all disputes, there are three sides: my side, your side and the
right side. Conflicts arise when there is a perceived injustice in
both of the groups. The extent of the conflict is determined by
the price one is willing to pay. In case of war, at least one of the
parties decides that the death of members of its group is a
smaller price than the dispute. Both sides often have legitimate
reasons for the dispute.
For military parity, Pakistan’s view is that India has fought
many wars with it, and it has got a history of hostile relations
with India, which could break out in armed conflict any time.
Therefore it needs a comparable defence to India, in absolute
terms. India on the other hand says that it has China as a
potentially hostile neighbour, and therefore needs a defence
force to match the Chinese. The Chinese say their potential
adversaries are Russia and the United States, and so they need
parity with those countries. All legitimate reasons, but where
does this vicious circle move towards sanity?
The ostensible core issue of the dispute is often only one in a
series of irritants to the relationship. Once emotionalised, the
resentment generated by other issues also crystallise around it,
and the issue, though legitimate in itself, becomes rather more
symbolic. It gains a much more important part in the psyche
than the importance of the issue itself would suggest.
The parties of the other part are then caricatured and
stereotyped. Finally they are demonised, so much so that the
very mention of the group itself becomes derogatory. Once
passions are aroused, the more extreme elements take over the
leadership because group cohesiveness is better in a more
radical ideology and agenda. When committed ideologues take
over and resort to violence, they inadvertently pave the way for
lumpen elements to use terror for criminal ends under the cover
of the dispute.
At this stage some liberals are forced to speak, but these are
violently silenced by the criminal wing. It is no coincidence that
many of the liberals—the voices of reason—are eliminated as
page [48]

traitors in all disputes. Finally, an unhealthy calm prevails, and
the wounds take generations to heal. Alternately, the people get
so tired that they negotiate to end the conflict ‘somehow.’ This
leads to bad agreements, since one side believes that it is the
victor, and was ‘robbed’ of its victory, sowing the seeds for
future conflict.
Handling each stage of conflict, however ‘efficiently,’ is not
the answer. Stateswomanship is to talk and resolve issues before
it reaches the emotional stage. Sometimes, as in the case of the
Cauvery water dispute between Tamilnadu and Karnataka, it is a
little too late. In these times, a cooling off period is needed.
Then confidence building measures are needed so that tensions
and passions can be defused at the earliest.
The lead of Sri Lankan President Kumaratunga is instructive.
True, she had to use military might to crush the rebellion. But
her true stateswomanship lies in the fact that even at the moment
of victory in 1995 she was emphatic that the war was an
outcome of the ethnic conflict, and the causes of the ethnic
conflict still had to be addressed. She was also clear that only a
political solution—meaning negotiations—that addressed the
real underlying issues of the genesis of the conflict could bring it
to an end.
Most states seem to forget this aspect. While a military
approach could solve the problem for a while, what it does is to
drive it underground, and make it take more extreme forms.
Many states have ‘successfully’ combated their ‘terrorist’ and
‘separatist’ problems—for decades now. The problem still
refuses to go away. A military solution is not a solution, it is a
part of the problem. Only a negotiated settlement, in good faith,
in a spirit of accommodation, can solve problems.
In the resolution of a conflict, there must always be
adjustments. While ‘compromise’—which involves change in
principle, and therefore could leave residual bitterness, has now
become a dirty word, adjustments involve only changes in style.
Both sides must have something to show as gain, or as the
jargon goes: it must lead to a win–win situation. They must both
page [49]

be seen to win. This is as important as the substance of the
agreement.
Obviously, if the conflict has been bitter, the agreement must
show more ‘gain’ to justify price paid, for instance the blood of
martyrs, by the agitators during the struggle. It is in the interest
of society to resolve disputes in the shortest time possible,
before the stakes get high. With the passage of time, the
positions harden and the stakes become higher. The longer the
conflict, the more the time for ‘sacrifices’ which raise the stakes.
Conflicts are a part of life—and most often between
neighbours. Parties in conflict must always remember that no
matter how bitter the conflict, they will have to coexist as
neighbours after its resolution. We cannot preach bigotry and
expect tolerance, preach advaita and practice untouchability,
preach exclusion and expect welcome, sow hatred and hope to
reap love; sow conflict and hope to reap peace; and, most of all,
cannot preach death and reap life.
Conflict resolution must be able to convince both sides that
the future cost of not resolving it will be higher and escalation
will lead to diminishing returns. In a world that endorses
equality, it is difficult to see how that can be done within the
confines of an ideology that has graded inequality as its basic
tenet.

Peace
Mitigation is the road to peace. The present form of
‘mitigation’ adopted by the institutions of the oppressor
castes—specially the state—is to call for an ‘all party peace
meet.’ This is a symbol of inclusiveness. But ‘all party’ is not all
caste—it represents only the oppressor castes. There is no caste
democracy there. Aligning on caste lines and interests, the ‘all
party leaders’ invariably propose ‘let bygones be bygones’
totally disregarding even the overt physical violence suffered by
the Dalits. In cases of extreme violence, they propose token
government compensation as crumbs. ‘Peace committees’ are set
up by the state after violence against the Dalits to restore status
page [50]

quo—not to resolve the issue. They have the same people—
revenue and police officials, local leaders—who should have
prevented the incident in the first place. Often they are the actual
perpetrators, leaders, instigators and conspirators.
The language of inclusion is a mechanism of exclusion. The
symbol of justice is a tool for injustice. These supposedly ‘all
inclusive and representative bodies’ are comprised entirely of
oppressor caste males. In any case that involves any other
section, this is a grossly unjust and exclusionist body. If a
woman petitions for justice, she will be the only woman in this
all male—but all party—body. If she is a Dalit, she will be the
only Dalit, and the only woman—handicaps she is unlikely to
overcome or get justice.
Peace is a positive state of security and well–being. Unless
the systems of oppression are dismantled, there cannot be peace.
Mitigation is to be proactive and smoothen the process, ensuring
that the weakest are protected in their quest for humanity, and a
life with dignity. There was a time when the argument was that
slaves do not want liberation because they are happy as they are,
and those speaking for them are the real trouble makers. After
generations of conditioning, it would be surprising if they did.
Whatever the merits of the argument, Dalits want to be liberated
because they are fully aware of their subordinate status. With the
increasing penetration of knowledge and information, people
will become aware of inequality. To hope that they will remain
content with their unjust situation is to be unrealistic. They will
reclaim their humanity. Whether labeled heretical, or law and
order problems, these are aspirations that guns cannot kill nor
gods banish to hell. There cannot be peace without justice.

page [51]

7
A responsible use of symbols
Many symbols are used and many more, unfortunately, are
misused. Symbols are potent, and invoke archetypes that appeal
to our powerful sub–conscious. One should be careful in using
them. Once activated, they have a life of their own. While
reacting to symbols, one should be acutely conscious of the fact
that they are only symbols, and not get carried away. Just
because a person is called ‘swami’ and wears saffron he is not a
saint. Just because the thali breaks, the marriage need not.

Symbols and mobilisation
It is difficult not to get carried away by the artful
manipulation of language and symbols. The process is simple,
and too recently witnessed in India, to need recounting. The key
is that only people whose lives are divorced from their values
can be mobilised on a symbol of that value. The mobilisation is
always on the basis of the absence of the value and therefore to
‘regain’ it.
One of the most conspicuous in this regard is the advertising
campaign regarding cigarettes. The industry has been very
convincing that cigarettes are very masculine, and shows a man
being surrounded by a lot of ‘pretty young things.’ The
psychology is different. The cigar is a phallic symbol all right.
The cigarette is a ‘little’ symbol—and feeds on the male
obsession with size and inadequacy. Sucking on the cigarette is
therefore an act of oral sex. For men it is an act of homosexual
oral sex—a totally different reality than the one defined by
industry. Some psychologists, unable to face this
interpretation—being smokers themselves—manufacture myths
of smoking being phallic display. ‘Good people’ of course do not
talk of such things, so entire generations of youth get slow
poisoned due to this false sense of morality and decorum.
page [52]

The state is another potent symbol, integrated into the very
concept of nationhood. The success of the state is in convincing
everyone of its legitimacy. Most people forget that the state is
organised crime that has been successful. It is one vested interest
among many. Most development workers and citizens—’good
people’—do not take that into account, and are baffled when
their ‘good work’ is sabotaged by the state.
A symbol is a rather reductionist version of what is to be
achieved and the utopia that is the underpinning ideological
scaffold is voyeuristic. It is not a lived ideology. The fascist
method is to create a pseudo–sense of potential loss, and
mobilise people based on the loss, harking back to a false
‘remembered’ utopia. The poor are natural vehicles for such
mobilisation, because they have only their gods and values and
little else to lose in this world. So to snatch away ‘god,’ their
only possession, is very threatening.
In a world caught in a spiral of more and more rapid change
and transition, each generation believes that the world is going
out of control and yearns for the ‘good old days.’ Religion,
being an unidimensional constant, is a tool to discipline across
generations. This is right across the social spectrum, with the
middle class being a little more prone to it because of ‘middle
class morality.’
Everyone is biased and prejudiced. But legitimacy for acting
on one’s prejudices and biases comes only when there is
sanction from the top. It is here that the demagogues stand
indicted. The poor, and communities on the edges of survival,
are justified in safeguarding every bit of space they have. The
‘leaders’ are not so precariously placed. They use symbols to
mobilise the poor for selfish interests. The poor are sacrificed
once these demagogues find some accommodation for
themselves in the power structure.

Nation ‘building’?
There is a common argument that this negative use of
symbols is the only way to bring back pride to a people and is a
page [53]

pre–requisite for nation–building. The example often cited is
Hitler and Germany. But is it worth the cost? Hitler brought
‘prosperity and pride’ to Germany for ten years. He got into a
war for six, and fifty years down the line, Germany continues to
anguish over its guilt and struggles be included as a full member
of the human race. It needed the despised African people to help
it rebuild after World War II. The effects of this ‘national pride’
and ‘social reconstruction’ are still being paid by that society
with its skin–heads and neo–nazis.
The prime mover of this ideology in India is L K Advani. For
that precise reason, the Americans are correct in putting him
right next to his idol Adolph Hitler in the museum of criminals.
Interestingly, his apologists say that he is the new ‘iron man’ of
India, the second Patel who unified India. These are the same
justifications for Hitler in the height of the Nazi blitzkrieg. All
these ‘he–men’ hide behind many layers of security. Strip them
of their security and make them live as ordinary citizens, all
their brave hate campaigns will stop.
If liberation and nation–building are the objectives, then they
can be done on inclusive and just platforms. New societies can
only be created based on the values of the new if they are to
have a strong enough foundation to be sustainable. It is not easy,
since those used to the privileges of this system are not going to
give them up easily. This makes the struggle for liberation a
rather ‘undignified’ affair with the oppressors retaining the high
ground since they have defined status quo, created systems to
defend it—peopled with the same strata that they oppress—and
so can project aristocratic aloofness.
Mobilisation for liberation are often fire–fighting exercises of
resistance. They can be brutally suppressed. What no system can
withstand is the laughter of the people—satire if the purpose is
to hurt—nor the celebration of an oppressed people on the road
liberation. The road to liberation is a joyous one, festive and
celebratory, and the mobilisation on systems and symbols of
celebration. That gives the oppressed the advantage. Aristocratic
page [54]

aloofness—the seeming neutrality of those at the top of the
pyramid of exploit—then becomes stuffiness and rigidity.

Responsibility
Literacy has three ‘Rs.’ To be educated, the fourth is needed.
The fourth ‘R’ is the responsibility of the intelligentsia to
highlight the best in human nature, and to be on the side of the
oppressed. ‘It is written’ is often the final word. The human
being and human well-being should be at the center of all human
endeavour.
Though on the side of the oppressed, even while developing
an ideology for liberation, the intelligentsia should at no time
give in to hate, communalism, incitement to racial or other
violence or other negative human traits, but should always
emphasize love, harmony and tolerance—with self–respect and
a life with dignity for every individual being a non–negotiable.
The outlook should be positive, creating a win–win, inclusive,
enabling ideology. If not, it is a betrayal of trust. Life is too short
even to love adequately. There is no need to waste time on hate.
The patterns of life can be written from many angles all
seemingly true. That people are good or bad till circumstances
force them otherwise, that the chief motivation of life is the life
instinct, the death wish, the sex instinct, the lust for power,
personal ambition, will... But while creating patterns, one has to
be conscious of this responsibility. The patterns created will be
used by people to justify many different actions.
The history of India can be written from the point of ‘Hindus’
fighting against ‘Christians’ or ‘Moslems;’ or of ‘Dravidians’
versus ‘Aryans;’ or ‘Dalits’ versus ‘Brahmins’ ... There is such a
large corpus of material available that virtually any of these, and
many more besides, can be convincingly argued.
In this example, we explore ‘Gandhism,’ the most used
official symbol of India to show how such a positive pattern can
be created. Then we go on to the flaws of this position.
page [55]

A positive response_________________________________________
Gandhism, as an ideology and an expression of the highest
forms of philosophy, broke into the global consciousness since it
was used against the contemporary global super-power. However,
its subaltern stream can be traced back authoritatively for
millennia, and it can be safely asserted to be still evolving. A
hundred and thirty years since his birth, it might be appropriate to
trace Gandhism by its various names and the other ‘mahatmas’
who gave, and continue to give, shape to this evolving ideology.
To trace Gandhism before Gandhi is seemingly impossible, but
as Robert Barnabas Brough says in his poem, ‘An early Christian,’
Christians were on earth ere Christ was born
Thousands of years ago men dared to die
Loving their enemies—and wondering why.
Gandhism, in this note, similarly refers to a developing stream of
human ethical consciousness—for a good Gandhian is a good
Hindu is a good Christian is a good Moslem.... is good.
Human progress must be traced not by our potential to kill, but
rather by our potential to love, and to justice. Philosophers and
great law makers—while making concessions for contemporary
circumstances—have tried to guide the human race in that
direction. Their followers have had very many difficulties in
following their philosopher-teachers. The famous dictum ‘an eye for
an eye...’ is, arguably, the first progressive legislation in this regard.
More than an admonition to revenge, it was a limitation. Rightly
interpreted, it restrains anyone from excessive retribution. It sought
to restrain the powerful from going on rampage for real or
imagined hurt.
Even by the first century B. C. there was considerable progress.
The Jewish philosopher Hillel propounded ‘do not do unto others
what you do not want them to do unto you.’ The undatable, but
probably earlier, Santiparva of Mahabharata says
‘Do not do unto others what, if done to you, would hurt
This is morality in a nutshell; for the rest, do what you like.’

Khung–fu–Tsu of China echoes this around 480 B.C..29
What displeases thee, do not thou, to anyone; or
Do to no man that which thou hateth; or
29 Quoted by E K Palia in Origin and Objects of Religion, 1956.
page [56]

Do not do to others, what you do not wish, they should do unto
you.

Closely related to this, almost word for word, is Jesus’ famous
‘Do unto others what you would like them to do unto you’
and developing it to
‘Love thy neighbor as thyself, ...that is the law and the prophets.’
Jesus went on to develop this further when he said ‘love your
enemies, do good to those who persecute you.’ That is a quantum
leap in philosophical terms. About seven centuries later, the Koran
says
‘Repel [evil] with that is best; Then, will be, between whom and
you, was hatred, become, as it were, your intimate friend.’30
The success of Gandhi is that he put this into practice, clearly
separating the ‘sin and the sinner.’ Gandhi is a mahatma, great
soul, because he insisted that the British should leave as friends,
and planned all his campaigns so—despite all that the British did.
The core contribution of the philosophical position of Gandhism is
not non-cooperation with an unjust government—which was a
contribution of Thoreau, as acknowledged by Gandhi himself—but
that ‘the British should leave as friends.’ This is a ‘Hindu’ saint
doing what the Koran asked.
This theory is from the Koran. The practice of confronting the
sin, while loving the sinner and enabling the adversary to also have
positive feelings is the singular contribution of Gandhian
philosophy. This means that not only does one have to love one’s
enemy, but so act that the ‘enemy’ actually loves us!
This seems to be a difficult philosophical position to develop on,
but develop it has. Gandhi’s death has not stopped the
development of human ethics nor its practice. There are of course
many adherents of the message who live it out in their daily lives.
Progress, in ideological terms, can be seen right here in India. In
a little known village Kanjipadam in Keralam there is a bold
experiment that, among other things, tries to ‘love one another
because of their faults!’ Not in spite of but because. The moving
soul behind this is a retired school teacher Pankajaksha Kurup.

30 The Koran, Chapter 41, Verse 34. Ahura Mazda told Zoraster roughly the same thing.
E K Palia, p147–8.
page [57]

The experiment involves about 3000 families in a panchayat
ward. It includes a non-monetary economy, and community
property in its embryonic form. Daily meetings of groups of 10
families and weekly and monthly meetings of progressively larger
groups is the norm. Though the press in Keralam has hailed it as a
place where ‘love has bloomed’ the philosopher himself declares
that they are all still as ‘bad’ and as ‘full of faults’ as before. It is
true. The community does have its ‘undesirables.’
In one of their meetings, there was a complaint that one among
them stole something. The response is interesting. Kurup pointed
out that it was a good thing to happen, because they finally noticed
the person. The community, he explained, did not notice him when
he was lying drunk in the cow shed. Nor did they even know that
he was drunk because he could not raise money for his sisters’
weddings. So his stealing was good in that it gave an opportunity
for them to envelop him with their love. Quite a living ideology that!
As long as the human race seeks to rise above itself, the
progression of ethical philosophical frontiers will continue. It is
when ordinary people, despite all the counter-pressures,
collectively do extra-ordinary things that the race as a whole
progresses. It is those who live it in their daily life who are the real
custodians of the cutting edge of ethical standards of the race.
It is easy to destroy the oppressing ideology by hate. But then it
is only replacing one anti–people ideology and system with
another. To create a better world, it must be done only through
love. To reiterate: life is too short even to love adequately. There is
no need to waste time for anything else.
Modern politics is divisive, and the competition seems to be to
what basest instinct the politician can appeal to. The task before
us is to heal, while at the same time change the unjust status quo.
Human history is the evolving search for a better human life, love
and justice. It is easy to destroy. The intellect should be used for
more constructive purposes. As Boris Yelstin said: it is easy to build
a throne of bayonets, but you can’t sit on it for long.

It only needs a few plump gods and goddesses dressed in
semi–transparent synthetics and golden coloured plastic crowns
showering rose petals from the heavens to complete this
page [58]

rose–tinted, soft–focus picture. This pattern does not mention
that this positive love can come only if an individual’s right to
life with dignity is ensured. If not it is a very disempowering
ideology that leads at the very least to self abuse, but oftentimes
to oppression and genocide of entire peoples and civilisations.
Dalits love too much. Non–Dalits abuse this love, while
enjoying its fruits. No country can love at the cost of its
independence, no community at the cost of its honour, and no
individual at the cost of their life with dignity. Otherwise it is
not love but abuse. Dalits need to react, not keep loving their
oppressor. Love in this case becomes a handmaiden for
exclusion and status quo. Love may be positive, but in this case
its effects are negative.

The process of inclusion and liberative scriptures
We have quoted Arun Shourie on Hinduism. His book is
much more inflammatory. His present position is that he wrote
the book when he was mentally disturbed. Naturally. If one can
say what he has about an ideological system that has given the
world advaita, he will be. Anyone in a state of hate—as he has
consistently proved in his later books too regarding Islam,
Christianity, the Communists and even Ambedkar—is mentally
disturbed. Insanity—permanent or temporary—is a recognised
medical and legal state.
All aspects of life should be critiqued. But it can be done
positively, for human upliftment. Life is rich enough to very
easily build many different patterns, all from the same canvas.
The point is to make empowering, liberating, inclusive ones.
Enjoying the fruits of the labour of the oppressed, and living in a
leisure economy, it is the duty of the intellectually honest to
create an enabling environment for the liberation of all.
If that is the case, why did we use the critique of Arun
Shourie rather than Dr S Radhakrishnan’s writings on
Hinduism? For three reasons. The first is that Arun Shourie has
brilliantly articulated the frustration of the excluded. The second
is that he is a representative of the present Hindutva position.
page [59]

Third, he typifies the blindness of the Hindus in the
establishment—even if they have experienced exclusion. It is
doubtful if Dr S Radhakrishnan would even be elected to a
village government today.
Gandhi’s position regarding the liberation of Dalits is
consistent with the philosophic evolution of his later years and
his often expressed desire to be born again as a ‘Harijan,’
tempered by his constant run–ins with Ambedkar. He was clear
that the restoration of the rights of Dalits needed to be done by
all Hindus as an act of atonement. This is a position more
advanced than ‘granting’ rights. This is to acknowledge guilt for
oppression and accept responsibility for restitution, regardless of
the Dalit demands or capacity for regaining these rights.
The fundamental flaw in this position is, of course, that
Gandhi wanted to do this within the ‘Hindu’ identity
maintaining the sanctity of the hierarchical caste system. But
rooted as it is in religion and scriptures, untouchability can be
removed only with the removal of the caste system. Liberative
elements abound in the very same scriptures. In the transitional
phase to a fully rational discourse, they can be used.
For instance, the Manusmriti is not valid for the Kaliyuga.
The laws of Manu are intended for the Kritayuga;
Those of Yajnavalkya for the Tretayuga;
Those of Sankha and Likhita for the Dvaparayuga;
And those of Parasara for the Kaliyuga.
Parasarasmriti 1:2431
S Radhakrishnan, easily one of the most erudite on Hinduism
and one of the greatest Philosopher–Kings says32
Some of our institutions have become out of date and require to be
modified if not scrapped. In the past religious emotion has attached itself
to ugly customs. It has prompted and sanctioned animal sacrifices,
obscure rites and oppressive caste regulations. Our sacred literature
repudiates discrimination based on birth or jati and emphasises guna and
karma.

31 Quoted by TMP Madhadevan in Outlines of Hinduism; Chetana; 1956.
32 Ibid, from the foreword.
page [60]

He continues that ‘Hindu religion [is the] practice of love.’
This really is the core contradiction. Why is the best projected in
philosophy and the worst practiced? Worse, why does no one of
any consequence call for the abolition of caste and the genuine
practice of love? The devout have for far too long got away with
presenting the liberative elements in discussions while enjoying
the fruits of oppression in practice.
Ability to address the core issue is lacking. The caste system
itself can be removed only by getting out of the religious
identity. Even pontiffs of major mutts find that difficult. Not one
leader of any repute has repudiated the Manusmriti nor the caste
system. This arises in part due to the fear that disowning some
part of the scriptures will cause the whole edifice to fall like a
pack of cards. That is not true. Banning Sati and enabling widow
remarriage have made it stronger. Accepting ‘education for all’
in principle has not damaged Hinduism—as Christianity also
found a few centuries earlier with the Renaissance.
Scriptures sanction everything—and nothing. Religion is
what is practiced, not only what its writings say. By that
yardstick untouchability is a damning indictment. Those wanting
to throw out obnoxious practices have enough scriptural
sanction and authority. That it is not done is an indication of
laziness and lack of will—and a comfortable enjoyment of the
fruits of oppression and exploit, protestations of guilt
notwithstanding. These protestations are to assuage the
conscience in public. If there is genuine remorse, this guilt
should lead to atonement—and lead at least to the Gandhian
action.

The Dalit response
Dalit empowerment for justice is based on negotiated
consensus, tolerance and fairness. Activism and militancy have
their place, but the leadership has a vision of a new society, not
only relating to the Dalits, using the term Bahujan which is more
inclusive. The cadre and grassroots workers need to resist the
page [61]

immediate violence they face continuously every day in their
life.
A restitution process needs a maturity of time-scale, an
understanding that the process is a long struggle, and that short
cuts are counter-productive in the long run. The third
requirement is tolerance of pace, that the oppressor castes cannot
change in five years, and Dalits themselves will not all unite at
once. The unity of Dalits is the true indicator of the pace for
liberation.
Atonement needs to be matched by assertion. Leaders of both
sections need to work in tandem so that the process moves
forward smoothly at the fastest possible pace. The Dalits have
shown these characteristics in their agenda to build bridges with
those who consider them untouchables. Practice, though, has to
contend with historical reality. Power is never given. It is always
taken.

page [62]

8
The future, in perspective
This note is a wake up call for those pretending to be asleep
by lending their prowess to spreading hate. Only a sleeping man
can be woken up. It is a call to rational thought, and for building
inclusive ideologies. If we can make liars, cheats and sexual
deviants into gods—which is a good thing, because we must
focus the positive side, and not give in to the negative—why not
accord at least human status to Dalits? When we are able to look
at the positive side of ‘gods’ why degrade fellow beings? God, if
all powerful, does not need it. People do. Such defence is not
required for a god who really is ‘omni’ but for a being who is
‘im.’
Focusing on the positive—the world as it should be—we
cannot be blind to reality—the world as it is. When reacting to
symbols and calls for mobilisation, a reality check might help: in
which way is the power and money going as a result of this? In
this note we have shown how easy it is to create logical
explanations that are the opposite of conventional wisdom. We
have demonstrated conventional wisdom to be absurd. Though
seemingly logical, this note is equally—but not more—absurd if
used to justify oppression.
Symbols tend to become unidimensional. Pure and ideal,
good and bad, become either–or. It is not so. An ideal life has its
share of discord, ‘failures,’ and trials. It has its ups and downs.
An ideal person does succumb to temptation. The wise do
foolish things... and gods do sin.
There is an unfortunate tendency to deify Ambedkar and
recast him as an unidimensional symbol. Many refer to him with
honorifics and titles. But these are unnecessary—he is bigger
than all of them. Ambedkar was a Dalit and a human being. An
extraordinary one no doubt, but still human. His is a legacy that
all Dalits can claim—and all Dalits can become like him. Soon
page [63]

many Dalits will even transcend him. If he is made into a god,
even aspiring to be like him will be a sacrilege and forbidden.
Instead, let there be many more Ambedkars—all of them very
human, and very Dalit.
It is possible to create ideologies that uplift without needing
to put-down others—an ideology that does not need to degrade
others so that some can be ‘uplifted.’ Ideologies that include
everyone in the scope of liberation are well within human
capacity. We can also use some powerful and evocative symbols,
archetypes and imagery of our own:
We do not ask this for ourselves alone, but for the wholeness of the
cosmos, the well–being of the earth, the liberation of our oppressors, the
whisper of the trees, the music of the winds, the song of the birds, the
symphony of the forests, the sparkle of the streams, and the smiles,
dreams, hopes, tingling laughter... of our children.

Very uplifting. Very hot air.

The Diaspora: Power without responsibility
The communications revolution and information technology
make the role of the Indian Diaspora—called ABCDs, American
Born Confused Desis—mainly in the United States and
predominantly Brahmin, have disproportionate influence in
shaping India. Their view of India is myopic and romantic—a
unidimensional utopia shorn of the complexities of life.
India for them is an Arcadia they yearn for, yet are unwilling
to live in. This reductionism is dangerous as manifested in their
funding of the Babri Mosque demolition, and then their appeal
for calm in national print media—taking the role of disinterested
peacemakers!—the modern global ‘all party meet.’
Any formation that panders to this reductionism gets their
tremendous clout, both in mind–space and in money. It is the
fundamentalist and fascist Hindutva formations that best fulfill
their need of a ‘remembered’ utopia. Dalits will increasingly
need to factor in this additional oppressive instrument in their
quest for liberation.
page [64]

A life with dignity, and equality...
These words of wisdom are from a Dalit woman. The story is
probably apocryphal, but the values expressed remain valid.
Moodevi is the goddess of sleep. She is often portrayed as
unkempt, and dirty. Lakshmi, the goddess of wealth, Saraswathi,
the goddess of learning and Sakti, the goddess of power, are
considered auspicious.
When a Dalit woman was going out for an important
function, she saw Saraswathi. She felt it was a bad omen. So she
came back to her house, drank a cup of water, and then went out
after a while. This time, she saw Lakshmi. She again came back,
and waited. She went out the third time––and saw Sakti. She
returned home yet again. When she stepped out for the final
time, she saw Moodevi. Delighted, she set forth on her mission
with a spring in her step and a song in her heart.
The puzzled onlookers asked her why she behaved contrary
to accepted wisdom. Her reply was simple. Lakshmi,
Saraswathi, and Sakti are partial. They shower blessings only
on select favourites. But Moodevi? She comes to all. She has no
favourites, she blesses everyone equally. We can trust only her to
come to us. Blinded by symbols, are we judging the good as bad,
and the bad as good? Isn’t Moodevi more just than the others?
This book is a juxtaposition of different versions of reality
and interpretation. We could just as easily substitute ‘women’,
Adivasi, children or any oppressed group instead of ‘Dalit’.
Present mindscapes are so indoctrinated by anti–human
ideologies, that even pointing out fundamental flaws in the
‘natural order of things’ seem to be biases. Are they really
biases?
Your answer will tell you in which language you really think.
—oO(end of document)Oo—

page [65]

Liberating Mindspace

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Liberating Mindspace

More from OpenSpace

Liberating Mindspace