--- On Mon, 12/3/07, Ahumanb wrote:
iNTRODUCTION
The term 'Hinduism' has been derived from 'Hindu'. 'Hindu' is a Persian word which means dark [Firuz al-Lughat (Lahore: n.d.), p. 615. Also see Lugat Sa'idi: (Kanpur: 1936), p. 633.]. The word was first used by Muslims [H.G. Rawlinson, Intercourse Between India and the Western World, (Cambridge: 1926), p. 20.] for the inhabitants of the 'land beyond the Indus (Sindhu) river' and later, for the ancient Indians in general. The word was never used in Indian literature or scriptures before the advent of Muslims to India [Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics (ERE), (New York: l 967), 6:699. Also see Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, (Madras: 1992), p. vii.]. According to Jawaharlal Nehru, the earliest reference to the word 'Hindu' can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eighth century C.E., where the word means a people, and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word 'Hindu' in connection with a particular religion is of very late occurrence [Jawaharlal Nehru, The Discovery of India, (New Delhi: 1983), pp.74-75]. The Muslim rulers used the term 'Hindu' to mean Indian non-Muslims only. The Brahmans gladly welcomed it as it brought all the non-Muslim Indians under a single umbrella and thus provided them with a rare opportunity to expand their social, religious and political influence over them in the name of religion. The British rulers maintained it with one modification. They excluded the converted Christians from those covered by the term 'Hindu'. The non-Muslim people of the South Asian subcontinent called Hindu had no precise word for their religions [Benson Y. Landis, World Religions, (New York: n.d.), p. 49.]. They were, as they are, divided into thousands of communities and tribes, each having its own religious beliefs, rituals, modes of worship, etc. Finding it difficult to get the names of the religions of these communities, the British writers gave them the word "Hinduism" to be used as a common name for all of their religions in about 1830 [The New Encyclopedia Britannica (NEB), 20:581.]. Thus the people called Hindus got a common element, at least in word, to be identified as a distinct, single community. The people called Hindu have nothing common in their religious affairs. 'Hinduism', therefore, cannot give any precise idea as to what it means. Attempts were made to define the term but could not succeed. Faced with this dilemma, Hindu scholars sometime use the word Sanatan Dharma (eternal religion) and sometime Vedic Dharma (religion of the Veda), etc. for their religion. But as names of their religion, these words are also untenable as they do not imply anything precise for all the people called Hindu. Hinduism is a bundle of many things, often mutually contradictory. It is, therefore, not easy to identify its main features. However, some elements which are generally regarded as its main features are given below. Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines [Richard F. Nyrof, Area Handbook for India, (Washington: 1975), p. 163.] It has no organization, no dogma or accepted creeds. There is no authority with recognized jurisdiction. A man, therefore, could neglect any one of the prescribed duties of his group and still be regarded as a good Hindu. "Hinduism has never prepared a body of canonical scriptures or a common prayer book; it has never held a general council or convocation; never defined the relation between deity and clergy; never regulated the canonization of saints or their worship; never established a single centre of religious life; never prescribed a course of training for its priests."[ ERE. 6:7 12.] In the words of S.V. Kelkar, "There is in fact no system of doctrines, no teacher, or school of teaching, no single god that is accepted by all the Hindus." [Theertha, p. 177.] In Hinduism, none is, therefore, regarded to have forsaken his or her religion, even if he or she deviates to any extent from the usually accepted doctrines or practices. The Brahmans occupy the highest position in the hierarchy of the caste system. They are said to have sprung from the mouth of Brahma (god), they are the rightful possessors of the Veda. They possess spiritual superiority by birth. They have the monopoly right to act as priests, conduct religious ceremonies and festivals, and accept alms. The Brahman is the deity on earth by his divine status [Wilkins: Modern Hinduism, (London: 1975), p.239.]," born to fulfill dharma. Whatever exists in the world is his property. On account of the excellence of his origin, he is entitled to all. "Let a Brahman be ignorant or learned, still he is a great deity. To Brahman, the three worlds and the gods owe's their existence." [Theertha, p. 37.] (emphasis added). More on Brahman from Hindu Scriptures. Hindus believe in Many gods and goddesses. Some of them are human (e.g. Krishna, Rama) some are animals (e.g. fish, monkey, rat, snake), some half animal half humans (e.g. Ganesh), and some others are natural phenomena (e.g. dawn, fire, sun). Their number is generally believed to be 330 million. According to Hindu belief, god incarnates, i.e., takes the form of human being and other animals and appears in this earth in that form. Gods and goddesses were born like human beings and had wives and children. No god possesses absolute power; some of the gods are weaker than the sages and some others even weaker than the animals. Another aspect about Hindu gods is that the status of their godhood is not fixed. One finds that some gods were worshipped for a time and then abandoned and new gods and goddesses were adopted instead. The gods and goddesses worshipped now-a-days in Hindu homes and temples are not Vedic. The Vedic gods like Agni (fire), Surya (sun) Usha (dawn) are completely rejected and the gods and goddesses mentioned in the Puranas are worshipped by modern Hindus. Similarly, Rama who is currently receiving increasing acceptance among Hindus in India because of the wide propagation of the official and other media was never worshipped as a deity until the Eleventh century. Hindu scriptures are essentially pornographic in nature, full of sexual allusion, sexual symbolism, passages of frank eroticism and stories relating to venal love. Some religious sects even introduced ritual intercourse as part of their cult and a potent aid to salvation [A.L Basham, The Wonders That Was India (Calcutta: 1967), p. 172.]. The rituals, festivals and ceremonies are characterized by the display of obscene portraits, sex and sex-worship. The temples, places of pilgrimage and other holy shrines are full of sculptures with all sorts of sexual postures. The sexual life of Krishna, an incarnation of Vishnu, is well-known for its indecency. He had illicit relations with Radha, wife of his maternal uncle, in addition to a number of milk-maids, although he had a large number of wives [The number of his wives was sixteen thousand one hundred and eight (16,108) and his children numbered one hundred and eighty thousand (180,000). See Ambedkar, Riddle of Rama and Krishna, (Bangalore: 1988), p.25.]. Among Hindu gods, the most prominent ones are: Brahma (the creator), Vishnu (the sustainer) and Siva (the destroyer). Brahma is found guilty of cohabiting with his own daughter, Saraswati. It is for that reason that he is deprived of being worshipped. Vishnu is guilty of deceitfully ruining the chastity of a married woman, called Tulasi. Siva is not worshipped but the image of his linga (sex-organ) is widely worshipped. This is because of the curse of some sage [See Chapter 4.]. In the sculpture, Siva and his consort Parvati are depicted in various explicit poses of the sexual act. Prostitution is encouraged in the form of religious custom of devdasi (slave-girls dedicated to temple-idols) . Hindu gods and rishis (sages) are found engaged in sexual act with beautiful women and breeding illegitimate children. As for instance, in order that Rama could have strong soldiers in his army, the gods engaged themselves in begetting powerful sons. This they did by engaging themselves, in the words of Dr. Ambedkar [Dr. Ambedkar was the first law minister of independent India and was the author of India's constitution] ,
"in wholesale acts of fornication, not only against apsaras, who were prostitutes, not only against the unmarried daughters of Yashas [Yaksha, naga, ruksha, vidyadhar, gandharva, kinna, each of these words means demigod] and nagas, but also against the lawfully wedded wives of Ruksha, Vidhyadhar, Ghandharvas, Kinnars, and Vanaras (monkeys) and produced the vanaras who became the associates of Rama" [ Ambedkar, p.7.]
It is generally believed that the Veda is recognized as an absolute authority in Hinduism but the so-called low- caste (non-Aryan) Hindus have no access to the scripture because they are considered impure by birth. So the Veda is far from being an authority for these people. The only people who are allowed to read and listen to the scripture are the Aryan Hindus. The Brahmans, the sole custodians of the Veda, too hardly benefit from it because it is written in Sanskrit, a dead language, 'its content has long been practically unknown to most Hindus, and it is seldom drawn upon for literal advice' [NEB,20: 581]
There are clear evidences in the Rig Veda, the most sacred Hindu scripture, that the cow used to be sacrificed by Hindus for religious purposes. For instance, Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-coloured various-hued or single- coloured whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by Ferbvour - vouschsafe to these, Parjanya, great.protection. Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV), translated by Ralph H. Griffith, New York, 1992, p. 647]. In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire. Another hymn (RV: X.16.7) mentions the ritual enveloping of the corpse with cow flesh before applying the fire on it.
In the Brahmanas at 1.15 in the Aiteriya Brahmana, the kindling of Agni on the arrival of King Some is compared to the slaughter of a bull or a barren cow on the arrival of a human king or other dignitary. Similarly, at II.1.11.1 in the Taiteriya Brahmana and XXXI.14.5 in the Panchavinsha Brahmana, the rishi Agastya is credited with the slaughter of a hundred bulls. In verse III.1.2.21 in the Satapatha Brahmana, sage Yajnavalkaya asserts that even though the cow is the supporter of everyone, he would eat beef "if it is luscious." At IV.5-2.1 in the same Brahmana, it is said that a barren cow can be slaughtered in the Some sacrifice. Not only for religious purposes, but also for other purposes one could kill a cow and eat beef. Thus at II.4.2 of the same Brahmana, it is suggested that a fat bull or fat goat should be sacrificed in honour of an important guest. Similarly, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishada (VI.4.18) advises a couple to take an evening meal of beef or veal pulao, if they desire to beget a son who is learned in the Vedas [Robert Trumbull, As I see India, London, 1957, p.241]. The word Brahmin incorporates all the upper-caste Hindus of India. They claim that, because they were made God Brahma's head, they are the chosen people of God. Worshipping a Brahmin is akin to worshipping God incarnate. Serving a Brahmin and offering him alms is like serving God himself. These are in the beliefs that are included in the minds of all other people, especially in the low caste Hindus. As a result 5% of the Indian population have psychologically enslaved the other 95%.
The Brahmins are the "ARYANS" invaders of India who entered the country thousands of years ago via the Khyber Pass. Over the centuries they have established themselves firmly on Indian soil by ruling over, and enslaving, the country's original inhabitants.
Brahmins always criticise, condemn and mock other Religions. Their criticisms and mocking is unreasonable and unacceptable.
In his autobiography, Dr. Charles an American scholar says that it is very simple to define a Hindu. He says a Hindu means "one who believes anything and everything if said in the name of God and shall never question its authenticity.
The Brahmins claim that Lord Rama is incarnated (came in human form) to study and understand the difficulties of mankind. Is it really necessary for a god to incarnate Himself? Can he not understand his creation? Why should God become a Human or an Animal to understand its problem in order or to understand the sufferings of these creatures? he is so powerful that he doesn't require.
Hindu society is divided into several thousands of caste and sub-caste. Caste is a highly organized social grouping. A Hindu is born in a caste and dies as a member of that caste. As caste is determined by birth, one can never move from one caste to another. Castes are not equal in status but arranged in a vertical order in which one caste is at the top and is the highest (the Brahman), another at the bottom and is the lowest (the Dalit) and in between them there are the Kshatriya, the Vashya and the Sudra in a descending order. This inequality in status is said to be an outcome of a person's deeds (good or bad) accomplished in his previous life. Caste differences find their expression largely in connection with marriages and eating together. In the words of S.D. Theertha, "... the Hindu social order is simply a menace to freedom, unity and peace. The three thousands and odd castes and the larger number of sub-castes, into which the Hindus are irretrievably divided, keep nearly ninety-five per cent of the Hindus in perpetual disgrace and permanently condemned to an inferior social status [Ibid., p.209.]. The most significant feature of the Hindu social system is what is called 'caste' under which the people are divided into various groups. The status of an individual in the society is determined by the caste in which he is born. A Hindu is born in a caste and he dies as a member of that caste. There is no Hindu without a caste and being bound by caste from birth to death, he becomes subject to social regulation and tradition of the caste over which he has no control. A person born in a caste carries the name of that caste as a part of his surname [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 187.]. The division of the people into various castes is said to be eternal so that no act of virtue or vice in this earthly life is enough to make any change in the caste or social status of a man or woman. The caste system of India has generally been regarded as an absurd, unhealthy social phenomenon, without parallel elsewhere in the world.
On the top of the caste hierarchy is the Brahman and at the bottom is the Untouchable (Dalit) and in between are the Kshatriya, the Vashya, and the Sudra in a descending order. According to the Hindu scriptures, the Brahmans have been sprung from the mouth of Brahma (Hindu god), the Kshatriyas from his arms, the Vashyas from his thigh and the Sudras from his feet.
Broadly, Hindus are divided into two groups: caste Hindus (also varna Hindus) and low-caste Hindus. The former includes the Brahman, the Kshatriya and the Vashya who are the descendants of the fair-skinned Aryan invaders and the latter includes the Sudras, who are dark in skin and are the offspring of the original inhabitants of India. In this group is also included the most unfortunate Dalit who is outcaste because he falls outside the original fourfold groupings. He is untouchable because his touch is bound to pollute the other castes and that is why he must always remain at a sufficient distance from them.
The fourfold division is not the end of the caste system; the community is subdivided into thousands of sub-castes (gotras). According to a survey undertaken by the Anthropological Survey of India during 1985-92, those who are called Hindu are divided among 2,800 unique communities. The so-called low-caste Hindus are officially divided into three broad groups, namely Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. According to this survey, these groups are subdivided into [Scheduled Castes-450,] , [Scheduled Tribes-461], and [Other Backward Classes-766] distinct communities respectively [Dalit Voice, 15:4, p. 20.].
The great distinctions of caste are to be maintained not only in the earthly life, but also after death. According to Markandaya Purana, after death, the virtuous Brahman goes to the abode of Brahma, the good Kshatriya to that of Indra, the worthy Vashya to that of the Maruts, and the dutiful Sudra to that of the Gandharvas [John C. Oman, The Brahmans, Theists, and Muslims of India, Delhi, 1973, p. 50]. Apparently, the Untouchable (Dalit) does not deserve any place in any heaven, may be because of his untouchability. 'Caste' is a Portuguese word, used by the Portuguese as equivalent of 'varna' (a Sanskrit word, which means 'colour'). They used this word to designate the peculiar system of religious and social distinction which they observed among those who are called Hindu. Caste originally was a colour-bar, and in India, as later in America, served at first to separate free men from slaves. Gradually, the Brahmans made it a religiously ordained social fabric for the Hindu society. Manu, a Brahman, gave in his book, Dharma shastra, details about the caste system.
When the fair-skinned Aryans invaded India, about two thousand years before Jesus Christ (pbuh), they defeated the dark-skinned indigenous people, Dravidians, who were the founder of the Indian Civilization. The Aryans subjugated them, learnt many things from them and built up another civilization which came to be known as the Ganges Valley or Hindu Civilization. To perpetuate the enslavement of the original inhabitants of India, the Aryans created the caste system, and thereby excluded them from their own society with the name of Sudra (which means slave).
In the words of S.V. Theertha, "When the ancient priests set themselves up as an exclusive caste of Brahmans in order to establish their self-assumed superiority, they had to inflict degradation on all other Hindus (i.e., original Indians) and press them down to various layers of subordination. They had to keep the people divided, disunited, weak and degraded, to deny them learning, refinement and opportunities of advancement, and permanently and unalterably to tie them down to a low status in society. The Hindu social organization based on hereditary castes was evolved by the Brahmans with the above object and was enforced on the people with the help of foreign conquerors." [Theertha, p.1 64] In Hindu community, the basic duty of every individual is determined by his caste. The Brahman is the rightful possessor of the Veda and is the chief of the whole creation. He has the exclusive right to become a priest. It is through his benevolence that other mortals enjoy life. The Kshatriya is described as the dispenser of justice, particularly as the one whose duty it is to punish law-breakers; he exercises the civil power and to his tender mercies the Brahmans could hand over law- breakers. He has to see that the various castes attend to their prescribed duties; but in doing this work he must abide by the decisions of the Brahmans. The Vashya comprises the merchant, the agriculturist, and the keeper of cattle. His chief work is keeping cattle. The Sudra has been created to serve the other three castes (i.e., the fair-skinned Aryans). "He is spoken of as a slave, his property, as well as his person, being at the disposal of his master." [Wilkins, Modern Hinduism, London, 1975, p. 247.] The Untouchable (Dalit) is to perform the most unpleasant tasks: cleaning lavatories, carrying night soil, skinning carcasses and making footwear.
The social, economic and other aspects of life are controlled by the caste regulation. Caste differences are largely invoked while arranging marriages and eating together. For rural Indians, castes shape almost every aspect of their lives: the food they eat and who can cook it; how they bathe; the colour of their clothes; the length of a sari (cloth worn by a woman); how the dhoti (cloth worn by a Hindu man) is tied; which way a man's moustaches are trimmed and whether he can carry an umbrella. Everything is determined by caste and nothing is left to chance.
Caste regulations formulated by Manu are discriminatory in nature; they favour the Aryan Hindus and discriminate against the so-called low-caste Hindus. In teaching the duties of the 1ow-caste people concerning marriage, Manu declares that a man aged thirty may marry a girl of twelve, and a man of twenty-four years may marry a girl of eight. He, however, is very particular about the marriage regulations of Brahmans. A Brahman must avoid marrying a girl whose family has produced no sons, that which has thick hair on the body, or is afflicted with hereditary disease. Let him choose for his wife a girl whose form has no defect, who has an agreeable manner, who walks gracefully like a young elephant, and whose body has exquisite softness [ Ibid., p. 196.].
Punishment for offence is also determined by discriminatory caste regulations. A crime against a man of his own caste by a Sudra is venial offence; but a similar offence committed against a man belonging to so- called higher caste is proportionately greater. If a Sudra through pride dares to give instructions to priests concerning their duty, hot oil will be dropped into his mouth and ears. A high-caste man having intercourse with a Sudra woman is to be banished; a Sudra having intercourse with a woman of the superior castes is to be put to death. Whatever a Brahman's offence, the king must on no account put him to death; he may, at the most, banish him, allowing him to take his property with him. Further, in case of wrongdoing against him, a Brahman need not approach the civil court, he is free to take vengeance upon the offender [See Wilkins, 1975, pp. 239-40; Oman, p. 52.]
The so-called Dalits (Untouchables) are the most pitiable victims of the obnoxious and pernicious caste system. Manu has little to say about them. He affirms that the members of three castes, the Brahman, the Kshatriya, and the Vashya, are twice-born; the fourth, the Sudra, once-born; there is no fifth.' All others are outcastes. The common name Dasyas (slaves) is applied to them all. [Wilkins: Modern Hinduism, London: 1975, p. 263] The treatment accorded to the Dalit is simply inhuman. According to Manu Smriti, 'Outcasted persons have no share in inheritance. '[ John C. Oman, The Brahmans, Theists, and Muslims of India, Delhi, 1973, p. 47.] The orthodox Brahmans still believe, if the shadow of a Dalit falls on them, they are polluted and will have to purify them by sprinkling over themse1ves water from the holy river, the Ganges [F.M. Sandeela, Islam, Christianity and Hinduism, Delhi, 1990, pp. 69-70]. 'You may breed cows and dogs in your house,' wrote Mr. M.C. Raja. 'You may drink the urine of cows and swallow cowdung to expiate your sins, but you shall not approach an Adi Dravida [i.e., original Indians: Dalits, Sudras, tribal people]. These people are still denied the use of public wells and tanks and at the same time stigmatized as unclean. They are still kept out of schools and colleges maintained by public funds and at the same time despised as ignorant and illiterate. They are still Shut out from temples, and yet branded as ungodly and unfit to associate with. For access to public roads and even for spaces to bury the dead, they have to depend much on the capricious benevolence of their caste-Hindu neighbours. [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, (Madras: 1992), pp. 184-85, quoted from P. Chidambaram Pillai's Right of Temple Entry, p. 150.]
The Brahmin media made a big campaign recently out of the Shah Banu case and they blew it out all proportion. They implied that lslam restricted the freedom of women. Let us compare the positions of the Hindu women and the Muslim women. See the following facts for comparison and then try to bring these Brahmins to their senses. Inequity and degradation of women are sanctified in the Hindu religion. Manu Smriti says:
"Never trust a woman.
Never sit alone with a woman even if it may be Your mother, she may tempt you Do not sit alone with your daughter, she may tempt you.
Do not sit alone with your sister, she may tempt you."
Again the same Manu Smriti continues:
"Na stree swadantriya marhathi"
"No liberty for women in society".
The Brahmins make a big campaign that Islam restricts the freedom of women. Let us compare the positions of the Hindu woman and the Muslim woman. See the following facts for comparison:
| | Hindu Women | Muslim Women | | 1. | The Hindu Woman has no right to divorce her husband. | The Muslim woman has the same right as the Muslim man in all matters including divorce. | | 2. | She has no property or inheritance rights. | She enjoys property and inheritance rights. (Which other religion grants women these rights?). She can also conduct her own separate business. | | 3. | Choice of partner is limited because she can only marry within her own caste; moreover her horoscope must match that of the intending bridegroom/family. | She can marry any Muslim of her choice. If her parents choose a partner for her, her consent must be taken. She has the right to reject also | | 4. | The family of the girl has to offer an enormous dowry to the bride groom and family. | The dowry in Islam is a gift from a husband to his wife (not the other way around as is practiced by some ignorant people). | | 5. | If her husband dies she should commit Sati (being cremated with her dead husband). Since today's law forbids Sati, society mainly punishes her in other "holy" ways (see below). | A Muslim widow is encouraged to remarry, and her remarriage is the responsibility of the Muslim society. | | 6. | She cannot remarry. | Mixed marriage is encouraged and is a means to prevent racism creeping in society. | | 7. | The widow is considered to be a curse and must not be seen in public. She cannot wear jewelry or colourful clothes. (She should not even take part in her children's marriage!) | A Muslim mother is given the highest form of respect. | | 8. | Child and infant marriage is encouraged. | | What right do the Hindus have to criticize the Muslims? Have you ever heard of a Muslim burning his wife? In India women die daily of dowry deaths, Hindu women being burnt by the husband or in-laws. It is a fact that upper caste Hindus ill-treat their women. The Brahmins are trying to claim that Muslims do not give freedom to their women. I ask you again. "Do the Hindus respect their women?" You be the judge! The concept of modesty and hijab in Islam is holistic, and encompasses both men and women. The ultimate goal is to maintain social stability and to please God. Since Muslim women are more conspicuous because of their appearance, it is easier for people to associate them with the warped images they see in the print and broadcast media. Hence, stereotypes are perpetuated and often sisters seem "mysterious" to those not acquainted with Muslim women who dress according to Divine instructions. This aura of "mystery" cannot be removed until their lifestyles, beliefs and thought-systems are genuinely explored. And, frankly, this cannot be achieved until one is not afraid to respectfully approach Muslim women - or any Muslim for that matter. So, the next time you see a Muslim, stop and talk to him or her - you'll feel, God-Willing, as if you're entering a different world, the world of Islam: full of humility, piety, and of course, modesty!
According to Hindu scriptures, a widow is required to mount the funeral of her dead husband and be cremated along with his corpse. If the husband dies at a distant place, the widow is nonetheless to be burned alive on a pyre by herself. A widow who burns herself to death this way is called sati. The guiding force to motivate Hindus to practice sati is the instructions given in their scriptures. Some of these are as given below [Wilkins: Modern Hinduism, London, 1975, pages 186 and 223.]:
"It is proper for a woman, after her husband's death to burn herself in the fire with his corpse; every woman who thus burns herself shall remain in paradise with her husband 35,000,000 years by destiny." "The wife who commits herself to flames with her husband's corpse shall equal Arundathi and reside in Swarga (heaven)."
"Accompanying her husband, she shall reside so long in Swarga as the 35,000,000 of hairs on the human body.
"As the snake-catcher forcibly drags the serpent from his earth, so bearing her husband [from hell] with him she enjoys heavenly bliss."
"Dying with her husband, she sanctifies her maternal and paternal ancestors and the ancestors of him to whom she gave her virginity."
"Such a wife adorning her husband, in celestial felicity with him, greatest and most admired, shall enjoy the delights of heaven while fourteen Indras reign."
"Though a husband had killed a Brahman, broken the ties of gratitude, or murdered a friend she expiates the crime."
The rite of sati was prevalent in India until it was prohibited by the British Government in 1829. Regulation XVII of 1829 declared sati illegal and punishable by the criminal courts as 'culpable homicide' amounting to manslaughter, ' for which a death sentence could be awarded. [S.R. Sharma, The Making of Modern India, Bombay, 1951, p. 478.]. The orthodox Hindus protested that measure and made an appeal to the Privy Council in England, but, fortunately for the would-be Hindu widows of India, the council dismissed the appeal. Thus after having been practiced in India for over two thousand years, the institution of widow-burning became illegal by the law enacted by a foreign power. Until the practice of widow-burning was made a punishable offence, the number of widows sacrificed every year was appalling. Early in the nineteenth century, in Bengal alone, the annual number of such cases was about twelve hundred. In 1818, no fewer than 839 cases of sati occurred in Bengal. Of these cases, as many as 544 were accounted for by Calcutta division alone [S.R. Sharma, The Making of Modern India, Bombay, 1951, p. 478.]. It appears that Hindu society was not ready to honour the ordinance which banned sati except under duress. Long after the date of enactment of the ordinance, the rite was freely practiced in Hindu States outside the jurisdiction of the British power. The sati which accompanied the cremation of the body of Maharaja Ranjit Singh of the Punjab in 1839 is a case in point. Four of his wives and seven female slaves were burnt to death on the funeral pyre with his corpse when it was cremated [John C. Oman, The Brahmans, Theists, and Muslims of India, Delhi, 1973, p. 192]. Sati continued to be practiced in some parts of India even after independence (i.e, 1947). Apparently, the institution of sati highlights the chastity of women. However, when one considers the institution of devdasi (i.e., the system of keeping temple prostitutes) to satisfy the lust of the priests and enable them to earn handsome income through engaging these girls in immoral activities with rich pilgrims, one fails to understand what is the real purpose of sati, upholding the chastity of women or torturing them to death.
The alternative to the rite of sati is enforced widowhood, with all its degrading accompaniments. It seems as if the Hindu law-givers made harsh regulations to be strictly followed by a widow to make her life as miserable as possible. The widow had from the moment her husband died not only to deplore the loss of a companion, but she had also to take a position of utter degradation in the household where formerly she had an honourable place. In the words of J.C. Oman, "In many parts of India, it is customary a few days after the cremation of the husband, to perform what may be called the ceremony of formally degrading the widow, when she has her head shaved by the barber and is deprived of the use of all her personal ornaments... "
The Sudra has a precarious position in Hindu community. According to Manu Smrithi, a Brahman is forbidden to give advice or even food to a Sudra, for the ghi (clarified butter) having been offered to the gods, must not be eaten by him(sudra) Further, the Brahman must not give 'spiritual counsel to him,' nor inform him of the legal expiation of his sin. He who declares the law to a servile man, and he who instructs him in the mode of expiating sin, sinks with that very man into hell.
A Brahman should never be the guru of a Sudra. 'While the first part of a Brahman's name should indicate holiness that of a Kshatriya's power and that of a Vashya's wealth, that of a Sudra 's should indicate contempt. The Veda is never to be read in the presence of a Sudra, and for him no sacrifice is to be performed. He has no business with solemn rites [Wilkins, Modern Hinduism, London, 1975, pp. 247-48.]. A Sudra has no right even to listen to the Veda. Recitation of or listening to this sacred book is exclusively a privilege of the Aryan Hindus. There is provision of severe punishment for a Sudra, in case he dares to enjoy this privilege. If he "overheard a recitation of the Vedas, molten lac or tin was to be poured into his mouth; if he repeated recitation of the Vedas, his tongue should be cut; and if he remembered Vedic hymns, his body was to be torn into pieces." [Swami Dharma Theertha, History of Hindu Imperialism, Madras, 1992, p. 42.] A Sudra is debarred from marrying a woman of the higher castes; if he does, their offspring will sink into a class even lower than his own. He must not participate in carrying the corpse of a Brahman. He is allowed to carry his dead only through the southern gate of the city where he may live. The murder of a Sudra by a Brahman is equal only to killing a cat or a frog or a cow [Wilkins, 1975, p.248.]. In fact, the Sudras who have only deprivations and sufferings in their lots, are not Hindus. As Wilkins suggests, "the Sudras were not originally part of the Hindu system, but were engrafted into it..."[Ibid. , p. 255.] Still worse than the Sudras are the Dalits (also called Untouchables) who fall outside the caste system and are therefore the worst in the social hierarchy.
Untouchability has been banned in the constitution of India, which was drafted by a committee headed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, himself an untouchable. It was his great ingenuity that he could tactfully make such a provision in the constitution of a country dominated by the Brahmans. However, there are plenty of evidences that the constitutional provision is honoured more by violation than by observance by millions of so-called high caste Hindus. Here are some:
"An attempt by a group of Harijans (untouchables) to enter an historic Hindu temple at the holy town of Nathdwara in Rajasthan state failed on Monday evening when high caste priests and others beat them back with sticks, injuring at least six. The attempt was organized by social reformers to coincide with the 120th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, the spiritual founder of independent India, who named the Untouchables (Dalits) 'Harijans.' Reports from Nathdwara say, a large contingent of police, deployed by the state government to maintain peace, took no action to prevent the attack despite the high court ruling." (Financial Times, 6 October 1988)
"In a village 100 miles from Delhi, villagers hanged and then threw on to a fire a girl and two boys; the boys had first been tortured, while their fathers made to watch, and one of them and the girl had still been alive when put in fire. They had managed to crawl out, but were thrown back. The girl, from the powerful Jat caste, had tried to elope with one of the boys, assisted by his friend; both were untouchables, a group so low they are not even on the bottom rung of the caste ladder. Not long before, in three villages in the state of Bihar, the huts of 400-odd families of untouchables were burnt down by gangs working for the local landowning caste, because they were demanding the legal minimum wage, 16 rupees (78 cents) a day." (The Economist, June 8th 1991).
"At school Harijans are often made to sit on the floor; in some villages they have to take off their shoes while walking past upper-caste houses, and are usually banned from drawing water from the village well for fear they will pollute it...
A Brahmin on a packed bus cannot hop off and bathe six times each time he fears the shadow of an untouchable has fallen on him." (The Economist June 8th 1991).
"Twenty Harijans (untouchables) have been hacked to death in a village in southern India by high caste Hindus and their bodies thrown into a nearby canal, news papers reports said. The Statesman said the incident occurred on Tuesday at Tsundur village near Guntur town in Andhra Pradesh state. Other reports said a group of Harijans were attacked by deadly weapons while trying to flee across marshes. A police picked in the village remained passive to the gruesome murders, The Hindu newspaper said. The incident had its origins in an incident that occurred about a month back in a local cinema hall. A Harijan boy watching a movie stretched himself and his leg accidentally touched a high-caste boy sitting in the next seat. Soon there was an altercation between them. The Hindus took this as an affront on their authority. They summoned the teacher-father of the Harijan boy and held him hostage until they caught hold of the boy and beat him. After this, other minor incidents between the two groups snowballed and finally led to arson and mayhem. The southern Indian incident comes three weeks after two lower caste youths and a 15-year old upper caste girl were publicly hanged by their own fathers goaded by a vigilante mob in a north Indian village. They were punished for defying the Hindu social code barring inter-caste marriage." (Arab News, August l0, 1991). "In 1989, the national government (of India) recorded 14,269 cases of atrocities committed against outcastes, including 479 murders and 759 rapes." (Arab News, March 31 1991).
"Jagjivan Ram (former Union Minister of India) with all power and wealth at his command was made to know that his social status was not even equal to the poorest and uneducated Brahmin of India. When he visited Varanasi on invitation and garlanded the statue of Sampurnanand (a Kayasth), the statue was washed with Gangajal (sacred water of the Ganges) and mantras were recited to make it 'pure' as the touch of a SC (untouchable) had desecrated the stone Statue." (Dalit Voice, Vol. 12, No. 21, p.17). "In Kerala, Namboodiri Brahmins till very recently were compelling 'low caste' women not to wear blouses lest they should appear as high caste. The result was that these women had to go bare-breasted which was condemned by all civilized nations." (Dalit Voice, Vol. 12, No. 21, p. 17).
Dalits and Hinduism
A recent example of caste-based atrocities was published by the Indian Express (June 24, 1995). A Scheduled Tribe woman, Prakash Kaur, was most painfully murdered in a village in Maharashtra province in May, 1995. Brutes from the Aryan Hindus:
(l) dragged her to the village temple;
(2) shaved her head;
(3) beat her with sticks,
(4) inserted a stick into her private parts;
(5) blackened her face;
(6) put her on a donkey and paraded her in the market; and
(7) continued to beat her till she died. When the dying woman asked for water, the killers poured hot water and kerosene in her mouth. Her only offence (?) was that her 12-year old son had entered the local Hindu temple. The place where the incident took place is very close to the local police station. The more painful aspect of the incident is that when the Home Minister of the state was contacted by the All India Democratic Women's Association, he refused to take any action in the matter saying that it was not a murder but a "reflection of mob anger."
Another recent example of caste-based atrocities was published by The Times of India in its issue of 18 January 1997. A 41-year old low-caste women was stripped and paraded naked through a village near Muradabad town (U.P.). Her only offence (?) was that her son had, allegedly, teased a girl who was a caste Hindu. The woman cried for help but none dared to come to her aid.
The racial atrocities meted out by the arrogant caste or Aryan Hindus to the under- privileged people of India have no parallel in modern world. The above instances are only few of such incidents presented to indicate how things are going on in a country claimed to be The largest democracy in the world. I dedicate this page in the memory of the women who was most brutally murdered by religious fanatics as described in the June 24, 1995, issue of the Indian Express. No one cared to save her from such inhumanity.
. 
__,_._,___
|
