Article By Sumanta Banerjee
The Sangh Parivar is creating a lot of hullaballoo over the consecration of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, claiming it as an assertion and restoration of Hinduism. It is also raising a hue and cry against a recent comment made by a DMK leader from Tamilnadu, who dismissed the Hindu Sanatan Dharma as a contagious disease ! There are also some well-meaning liberal intellectuals who are trying to salvage `good’ Hinduism from `bad’ Hindutva, implying that Hinduism as a religion is different from, and superior to the Hindutva as propounded by the Sangh Parivar. Let us examine all the issues in a dispassionate way. Does Hinduism, as preached by its clergy and practiced by its followers, enjoy any legitimacy according to the universally acknowledged standards by which a religion is recognized ? Can the roots of Hindutva be traced back to the very beliefs and customs sanctioned by the Hindu clergy ? Then again, what is Sanatan Dharma ? I start with the question – Should Hinduism be recognized as a distinct religion, and given the equivalent status that other religions enjoy in the global discourse ?
How are religious communities defined and recognized in this global discourse ? Their denomination is based on the beliefs and practices that they follow according to the preaching of their respective proponents who were historical figures. We thus have Buddhists deriving their faith from Siddhartha Gautama, who lived during sixth and fifth century BC. We have Christians devoted to Jesus Christ who lived during fourth and sixth century BC. Similarly, there are Zoroasterians (popularly known as Parsis in India) who owe allegiance to the Iranian prophet and reformer Zoroaster (originally known as Zarathrustra) who lived in 10th century BC. The birth of Judaism – the faith and practice of the Jewish people – can be traced to historical records like their exile in Babylon in 586 BC, followed by their further dispersal and attempts to bring them together which ended up with the formulation of the Talmud law by the rabbies (the Jewish clergy) in 2nd century AD. Muslims again seek inspiration from their Prophet Muhammad , who was born in 570 AD and died in 632 AD in Medina. The sources of their religious beliefs and practices are historical personalities and events that are well-recorded in the archives.
When we compare these religions with Hinduism, we find that unlike them which are based on the preaching of living historical characters, Hinduism has derived its inspiration from fictional characters found in myths. Whether it is Ram, or Hanuman – these objects of worship by Hindus do not have any firm historical basis. These mythological characters were created by writers who were patronized by the ruling class and its clergy in the course of various phases of development of Indian society. From half-historical and half-legendary sources, they composed the two epics – Ramayana and Mahabharata – from which the modern champions of Hindutva derive their inspiration. But curiously enough, in none of these epics, the term `Hindu’ occurs. The composition of Ramayana is attributed to Balmiki of the 5th century BC, and of Mahabharata to Veda Vyasa in the 2nd-3rd century BC. Both were composed in Sanskrit and originated from central India – which is described today as the Hindu-Hindi heartland. We find that these epics describe a society based on caste-oriented occupations, naming the Brahmins as priests, Kshatriyas as warriors, Vaishyas as traders, and Shudras as menial labourers. They are not described as a homogeneous religious group as Hindus.
What was the socio-political scene in that part of India during that period ? We can only hazard a guess, based on a few hazy historical events. The historian Romila Thapar, trying to explore the historical roots of Ramayana, speculates that the conflict between Rama and Ravana described there, could have been a reflection of “local conflicts between the agriculturists of the Ganges valley and the more primitive hunting and food-gathering societies of the Vindhya region” in about 800-700 B.C. She at the same time warns that epics like Ramayana “can hardly be regarded as authentic sources for the study of the period to which they pertain. Epics can be accepted as historically valid if supporting evidence can be found to bear them out.” (Re: A History of India. Volume One. 1974. Pp.31-33).
While the two fictional epics laid down a popular base for Hinduism at the lower level, the Brahmin clergy needed a philosophical base to impress the erudite sections of society at the upper level. They turned to the Upanishads composed around 700 B.C. – where, ironically enough, we again don’t find any mention of `Hinduism’ ! The Brahmin clergy, well-versed in Sanskrit, cherry-picked selected verses from the text to bolster up their claim as descendants of its composers. They then proceeded to shape the upper frame of Hinduism, designed to incorporate the various sections of society – a history which we shall delve into later in this article.
External origins of the name `Hindu,’ and domestic dubious origins of Hinduism
In fact, the very word `Hindu’ which the Sangh Parivar flaunts as the sign of their religious identity, does not have any indigenous origin. It is an exonym, given currency by the Persian traders who came to India, to describe the land and peoples living beyond the Indus (Sindhu) river. They mispronounced `sindhu’ as `hindu’ – and that’s how the Indian population came to be known in the then global discourse. The term took on a religious dimension when the Arab traders visiting India in the eighth century identified its inhabitants on a religious basis, describing the worshippers of idols like Shiva and Vishnu as Hindus. Recalling this period, Romila Thapar writes: “…the religion may be described as Hinduism from this point onwards.” She then adds that it “… grew and evolved from a variety of cults and beliefs, of which some had their foundations in Vedic religion, and others were popular cults…” (op.cit. A History of India. Volume One. p.132)
Further, the followers of Hinduism derive their devotion from two sources – `Shruti’ and `Smriti.’ `Shruti’ (meaning hearing sounds) refers to religious messages heard by devotees in the past, who passed on those messages to the future generations, who still follow them. The term Smriti means memory, implying that the religious beliefs and rituals being practiced by Hindus are based on what the followers remember from the past. These two categories form the basis of the Vedas. Now, both these sources of religious inspiration are unreliable. The capacities to hear and remember are limited by environmental surroundings as well as age-related infirmities. The Vedas, the origins of which are traced to 1500 B.C., were composed by Brahmin priests in the elite language of Sanskrit. These priests relied on the hearsay `Shruti’ and the memory `Smriti’ from the past as narrated by their ancestors. How faithfully could they reproduce those original messages from the past in the Vedic texts ? Were not their efforts to reconstruct the past contaminated by their then current Brahminical prejudices ? Thus the very basis of the Hindu religion was fragile, depending on sources which cannot stand the test of historical challenges.
The fragility was evident from the practice of Hinduism in certain parts of India, where it often emerged as a hotchpotch of upper caste Brahminical rituals and local lower caste and tribal popular customs, both interacting with each other on certain festive occasions
Discriminatory codification of traditional social customs in the framework of Hinduism
In order to reconstruct this fluid set of practices, and homogenize them under the hegemony of rigid laws that would impose strict rules on the followers of Hinduism, governing their behavior and actions in their daily life, the Brahmin clergy, from the first century A.D. onwards, in alliance with the upper caste Kshatriya rulers, began to codify the rules. These rules also discriminated against the lower caste people who used to have free access to Hindu temples and festivals in the past.
It was the Brahmin ideologue Manu, during this period, was the first to draft such a law, known as Manusamhita, or Manusmriti. The rules laid down by him came to be known as Sanatan Dharma – or the ever-lasting religion from the past that continued to govern the way of life, religious beliefs and customs, social duties and relationships among the various sections of the people. He divided the population into strictly demarcated categories of four castes in a hierarchical order. Each was assigned particular functional role – the Brahmins at the top entrusted with the task of governing the religious behavior of the people; the Kshatriyas, next in the order, made rulers responsible for administration; the Vaishyas after them, to take charge of trade and commerce; and at the lowest rung of the ladder were the Shudras, who were commanded to serve members of the above three castes. Below these four castes, were the manual labourers who were regarded as outcastes (who are known today as Dalits). While grudgingly accepting them as menials needed to clean their homes and carry out other dirty tasks – a necessary evil of sorts – Manu ordered their employers (members of the four castes) to treat them as untouchables, never allowing them access to water or food in their households.
Manu also laid down strict rules for women. He ordained that a woman all through her life, must remain subservient to a man – to her father during childhood, to her husband after marriage, and to her son in her old age. Even the nature of food consumption came under his surveillance. In a special chapter on diet, he made a distinction between vegetarian and non-vegetarian dishes, reserving certain diets for the upper castes. While laying emphasis on vegetarian food for the Brahmins, he allowed them on certain religious occasions to consume meat, when goats were sacrificed at the altar of some Hindu deities. Kshatriyas were allowed to eat meat, because Manu felt that it would strengthen their muscles to fight in wars. But beef was no-no – although Manu’s ancestors in the Vedic era feasted on cow-meat, which was served as a delicacy. In the ancient Vedic texts, we come across the word `Go-ghna’ (meaning the killing of a cow) as a term to describe a gift to guests as food offering. Manu also objected to the use of garlic and onions in cooking food, as he considered them impure.
Persistency of Manu’s laws in modern India
Hindu society in today’s India continues to follow these dictates of Manusmriti. They perpetuate the custom of untouchability directed against the manual labourers who are designated as outcasts (outside the hierarchical four-caste system). There are daily reports from different parts of India of Dalits being beaten up for taking water from taps reserved for upper caste people in villages, and being attacked if they dare to marry some one from the upper castes. Yet, untouchability is banned under the law in India. Despite laws that entitle the Dalits to reservation in government jobs, they face discrimination when appointments are made by the employers (who are mainly from the upper castes), who reject their applications on one ground or another. Thus, many such posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes remain vacant.
As for the position of women in modern Hindu society, they are treated by men in the same way as ordained by Manu. Designated as owners and guardians of women’s lives from childhood to old age, the men give away their child daughters in marriage (despite a legal ban on child marriage) , allow them to suffer ill-treatment by their husbands who demand dowry (which is again banned under the law), and after they become widows, leave them at the mercy of their sons who drive them out of their homes – a common phenomenon, as evident from newspaper reports. These rules of Manu which are still being obeyed by Hindu households, violate not only the provisions of Indian laws, but also the internationally accepted norms and laws that entitle women to sexual and reproductive health rights, right to contraception, right to divorce, among other avenues of female self-assertion.
Coming to the issue of food consumption – another social sphere, where Manu laid down strict rules – modern Hindu society persists in adhering to them, even to the extent of killing people who violate those rules. Manu’s injunctions against meat consumption are being fanatically carried out by his followers, who lynch Muslim traders who transport meat and attack Muslim shops, accusing them of false charges of selling beef. A strict order of vegetarianism is being imposed in the BJP-led states, restricting the access of non-vegetarians to their choice of food.
Hinduism and Sanatan Dharma violate the Indian Constitution and the UN Declaration on Human Rights
As enumerated above, the beliefs that are embedded in the Hindu scripture Manusmriti, as well as the practices that are ordained by Manu to be followed by Hindus in their social life, are seen to be violating of both the Indian Constitution and internationally accepted rules in religious matters.
Our Constitution while upholding the freedom to disseminate messages by all religious communities, also guarantees protection to the religious minorities (like Muslims and Christians) from any discriminatory practice against them by the majority Hindus, even when such discrimination may be sanctioned by the Hindu sacred texts. (Article 29 in Part III relating to Fundamental Rights). Similarly, with regard to the Scheduled Caste people (known as Dalits today), the Constitution laid down rules providing safeguards for them, and also empowering them with rights to employment in government posts. (Articles 335 and 338 in Part XVI – Special Provisions Relating To Certain Classes) .
On every count, Hinduism (as a system of beliefs and also a system of practices) breaches these provisions of our Constitution). Further, it violates internationally accepted rules that govern religious norms. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes freedom to change his religion or belief…” Still later, on November 25, 1981, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution called Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination based on Religion or Belief. Yet, here in India the present government allows gangs of fanatical Hindu vigilantes (openly operating as Bajrang Dal and RSS activists) to attack couples who engage in inter-faith marriages, and people who choose to convert from Hinduism to other religions.
As a religion, Hinduism in its present form, looks like an aberration in modern global society. It makes India stink in world public opinion (as evident from the numerous annual reports by various international bodies which condemn the steady decline in religious tolerance in India under the hegemony of Hinduism which is patronized by the present Modi regime).
Need for a second Manu to purge Hinduism of its toxic innards
If Hinduism is to gain legitimacy in the global arena of religions, to seek equal status with other religions and adhere to the norms laid down the UN, it has to look for another Manu, who will have to detoxify the prevalent structure of Hinduism by laying down an entirely new set of rules. To start with, the second Manu will have to eradicate the hierarchical `chaturvarna’ caste system, that still discriminates against various sections of our people – especially the Dalits. He will have to eradicate the custom of untouchability and embrace the Dalits. He will have to dismantle the patriarchal system (that was institutionalized by then first Manu), in order to emancipate the women. He will have to follow the directive principles of the Indian Constitution which encourages scientific thinking, prioritizing it over superstitious beliefs and customs.
Are the Hindu clergy who presided over the consecration of the Ram Mandir at Ayodhya, capable of producing such a new Manu who will reform Hinduism to make it acceptable as a civilized religion in the world religious arena ?
(Sumanta Banerjee – Born (1936) and educated in Calcutta, Sumanta Banerjee had been a journalist by profession for several decades , beginning with The Statesman newspaper in 1962. He was jailed during the 1975-77 Emergency for participation in the Naxalite movement. After his release, he became active in the human rights movement. Presently based in Hyderabad, he writes political ccommentaries on current events in India, and is engaged in research on social history and popular religion of Bengal. His published works include In The Wake of Naxalbari (1980) and Logic in a Popular Form: Essays on Popular Religion in Bengal (2002) )
Photo Courtesy: https://static.sanatanprabhat.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/7/2023/03/06133708/manusmruti.jpg
