Thursday, December 30, 2010


A Critical Assessment of HAF Report


Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

The HAF Report ‘Hinduism : not cast in casteism’ (Dec. 2010) is an admirable effort by a group of American diasporic Hindus to accurately depict the religion they respect and belong to. The motives of the authors and those associated with this report are therefore above reproach and ad hominem attacks are unjust and unfair. There are some good critiques of the Report and one that is especially relevant is that provided by scholar/intellectual Rajiv Malhotra whose work is familiar to most diasporic Hindus (A Critique of Hindu American Foundation’s Report on ‘Caste’ Dec.2010).

The Report is lengthy (173 pages) and is clearly written and divided into sections. The executive summary and the Introduction explain the Hindu American Foundation’s approach to caste and as well the criticism of caste by non Hindus. The remainder of the Report is an account of historical and contemporary attempts by Hindus, not only in India but also in the diaspora to both work to end caste discrimination and explain to themselves and the world at large that Hinduism is not linked to the social/historical phenomenon of caste
discrimination and that the human rights abuse present in society is not central to Hinduism.

This effort is admirable because it is one of the few systematic attempts by diasporic and possibly Bharatiya Hindus to provide a comprehensive (albeit limited) report on the question of caste in India and what it entailed. It might therefore be considered a first step in self education and can be fruitfully used for educational purposes both in schools and for the larger reading public (and to be presented before world bodies like the UN).

However, this can be done only after two things happen. First, the useful Critique put forward by Rajiv Malhotra must be seriously discussed and some of its recommendations must be incorporated into the Report.One of RM’s points is that the discourse of the Report is not cast in dharmic terms but uses the framework of Western thinking on the subject. Rajiv himself does not provide that framework. Sandhya Jain’s beautifully written article ‘Transnational Hindus’ provides a starting point.

Both Sandhya, Rajiv and other critics point to the mistake of conflating varna-jatti with the term ‘caste’, a Portuguese import which vaguely and generally speaking refers to race and ethnicity. Why is this a fatal flaw in the Report ? The Report wishes to end the discrimination and ill treatment of the Scheduled Castes ( the Dalits, formerly referred to as Untouchables) and the Scheduled Tribes ( referred to as Adivasis or Vanavasis).
This is their stated mandate.

But this leads them erroneously into the complex social arrangement of varna-jatti which
evolved and continues to exist without direct reference or links to the Scheduled Castes and Tribals. Hence, discussions of caste discrimination should be limited to those only.
The larger question of any links between varna-jatti and Untouchability is one that the Report at present is not qualified to answer. And therefore it adopts the Western
framework as a handy device. That has the advantage of not having to think the question through when one is in a hurry or mentally lazy, but the downside is a flawed exposition.

As the Report acknowledges, jatti (caste) developed out of the economic life of the country. The Vedas only broadly defined the 4 Varnas of intellectual-spiritual life,political life, commercial life and agricultural life. The jattis can be mapped on to this four fold division and in today’s India one’s varna or jatti has little or no connection to the occupation the individual practices.

While religious reformers and spiritual leaders down the centuries have opposed the ill treatment of the lower castes and those who fell out of this system (the Untouchables) they have not tried to tamper with the general jatti system of the country. The present writer has a brief article on the subject ‘ Gandhiji and the Caste System in his Village Republic’ (printed on this blogsite).

Hence, an economist approach can be taken towards the jatti system. Sandhya Jain mentions the economic component but focuses on the religious/spiritual life of Hindu Dharma. If the Hindu American Foundation wishes to sincerely explore the jatti system (and there is no reason to doubt their sincerity) they can and must attempt to incorporate her insights into their exposition of the jatti system. Sandhya does not explain the existence of Untouchability which floats about in that Dharmic world.

Seeking to explain that is also an urgent task both for her and the Diasporic Hindus.
This would strengthen not only our understanding of Dharmic Hinduism which is clearly under attack by outside forces that see it as an obstacle to their agenda but also provide a practical way out of the cul de sac in which the HAF has found itself. And this way out is not only for political reasons but also the practical way which can be found for dealing with the Hindu brethren who have been outside Hinduism’s pale.

In conclusion, the present writer would like to add the following : the Report acknowledges the ongoing work on behalf of the emancipation of the Dalits by government,by religious leaders and NGOs but does not mention the sterling work done by the Sangh Parivar. This is unfortunate because the Sangh, in addition to social consciousness also has a patriotic/nationalist dimension which should not be sneezed at, especially since the anti Hindu/anti Indian forces are ever present in the country and should be resolutely countered. Simply because these forces routinely refer to the Sangh’s activities as ‘communal’ the HAF should not fall victim to such propaganda.

Rajiv Malhotra has warned of the consequences of presenting the Report as it stands to the general public and the political forces and entities that are present in the U.S.

It might be advisable for the HAF to hold back the Report and revise sections of it.
As well the tone should be less of a mea culpa and more of a positive uplifting one. This is especially important for young readers who may feel discouraged at the mea culpa tone.

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university).

Editor's Comment: Was HAF a victim of a larger design?

Sunday, December 19, 2010


Critique of Hindu American Foundation's Report on 'Caste'


By Rajiv Malhotra

Author of: "BREAKING INDIA: Western Interventions in Dravidian and Dalit Faultlines" (January, 2011)

Chairman of Board of Governors, Center for Indic Studies, University of Massachusetts (Dartmouth)
Professor Emeritus, Dev Sanskriti University, Haridwar.
Special Overseas Advisor to the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha
Board Member, World Association for Vedic Studies
Founder and President of Infinity Foundation


The critique below is in response to a report on "caste" recently issued by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), “Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste” (available at

The purpose of my critique is two-fold: (1) to highlight substantive defects in the content of the report and (2) to demonstrate the severe damage that has already been inflicted or will likely result as a consequence of the distribution of the report. The report threatens to undo significant progress achieved by the Hindu community in correcting derogatory misrepresentations of Hinduism in the US educational system, provides valuable ammunition to anti-Hindu groups that will seriously undermine Hindu interests worldwide, and has serious geopolitical ramifications that threaten the interference of Western bodies into internal Indian/Hindu matters. Meanwhile, it does not achieve anything constructive to improve conditions on the ground in India in any sense.

This is a grave and urgent crisis for the Hindu community and cannot be dismissed or glossed over as a philosophical or ideological disagreement. The issuance of this report has become a serious political vulnerability for the Hindu cause. This critique is written in the hopes that HAF will respond to the concerns documented herein in a constructive manner through collaboration with concerned members of the community.

How the Controversy Started

In early December, 2010, India-based Dr. Kalyanaraman, a well-published scholar on ancient Indian history, brought to my attention a widely hyped report on caste published by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF). HAF claimed that this report and its contents had received the support of many major spiritual and other leaders of Hindu Dharma, mostly based in India. The report's purpose is to serve as a formal briefing document to the US Congress and other international legal bodies, positioning HAF as the apex body representing Hinduism and its "human rights violations." It stated: "The key goals in this report are to ... Highlight the fact that caste-based discrimination represents a failure of Hindu society..." (p.5)
This immediately raised several alarming questions: Shouldn’t any such briefings be completely vetted by a wider constituency before being submitted? Who gave HAF the authority to speak for India? and Hinduism itself ? Is this an effort by Hinduphobics in Washington to get an outfit like HAF to “plead guilty” and surreptitiously incriminate all Hindus who are not even aware that they are being represented as such?

HAF made tall and indeed false claims for itself, stating: "It is the first major study to be done by a Hindu organization to try to understand the problems of caste prejudice from within and attempt to take concrete steps to help ameliorate them." (p. i) This ignores the fact that countless Hindu bodies in India have written on caste over the years. The reason HAF gives for writing the report is that "there has not been a similar report from a credible Hindu institution in India." (p.12) But who decides the credibility of Hindu institutions and is this not a completely disingenuous attempt at self-promotion? Another reason given by it is that "because Hinduism has no single central religious authority, individual sampradayas and Hindu organizations do not, and have never, spoken for Hindu society as a whole..." (p.12). HAF now claims the authority to speak for Hindu society as a whole!

Dr. Kalyanaraman launched a massive email campaign against the report calling it rash, and "a rehash of the evangelical points of view." He wrote that HAF is placating Washington based groups by "falling into the trap set by evangelical groups who are present also in US Congress." This, wrote Kalyanaraman, opens the door further for the USA's "interfering in the internal affairs of India ... Caste is a stick to beat India with." He completely questions and challenges HAF's authority and competence to deal with this issue, and remarks that HAF has "overreached themselves." In addition, he also criticizes their failure to differentiate between jati and caste. His critique of the report is available at: He has called for a complete withdrawal of the report, and HAF's top executives have categorically dismissed that possibility.

This episode triggered dozens of emails and conference calls within the US based Indian/Hindu community. While many privately complained about the report, they seemed unwilling to publicly question it because HAF claimed that it had been blessed by Swami Dayananda Saraswati. Given Swamiji's stature, and out of respect for him, they felt compelled to keep their concerns private.

So I investigated whether Swamiji had actually endorsed this report or not. I found from two separate sources, who are in regular contact with him, that he had never read the report or endorsed it. I pointed out to HAF that using Swamiji's name without his permission was tantamount to a serious misrepresentation. After several attempts at intimidation and even hurling insults, one of the HAF top executives tried to back track and downplay this misrepresentation. He sent an email retracting the earlier HAF claim of support from Swamiji: "My humble apologies as well in implying that Swamiji reviewed our report."

This retraction opened the door for many more persons in the community to read the report and to draw their own conclusions. With the credibility of Swamiji no longer associated with the report, criticisms poured in from various places. HAF responded with a series of massive personal attacks against the critics, insulting them with name calling and making all kinds of irrelevant and false charges. An HAF supporter even resorted to the use of an anonymous id to send slanderous emails to their support base. Their tactics were a way to divert away from the issues of substance that were being raised, by attacking the personal credibility of the critics. It backfired miserably because it aroused even more anger against them.

Unable to cite Swamiji's name in their support, HAF then claimed that their report had been "picked up" by the Huffington Post and the Washington Post, when in fact , these were blogs authored by HAF's founders themselves at the media sites, and not carried or cited by independent journalists writing for those media as HAF tried to imply. In this war of words, HAF repeated its claims of being the pre-eminent Hindu body, of its support from many large donors who had contributed millions, and of its “brand value.” In this defensiveness, valuable time was lost that should have been used to deal with the issues of substance concerning the report itself.

In the days that ensued, a sharply worded critique was received from Rakesh Bahadur, who has single-handedly fought and negotiated with the Virginia education authorities for two years, in order to correct the Social Studies Standards of Learning (SOLs) and Curriculum Frameworks (CFs). He remarked: "Now HAF issued a report which describes caste in the same way as it occurs in the textbooks and standards." In other words, HAF is boosting the agenda of the Hinduphobics! Citing examples of how the opponents like to selectively quote Indian and/or Hindu sources to suit their designs, Bahadur remarked that "our opponents just need to refer a few sentences from the report" to neutralize all the efforts by him and his supporters. He developed a table of key mistakes in HAF's report, pointing out that "It is very dangerous to use Varna and Caste interchangeably," and that "HAF report does not give specific references from the scriptures mentioned, but instead gives some general statistics which do not prove anything." Bahadur concluded that "This report represents only the 'HAF perspective' and is not the 'Hindu perspective'. HAF does not speak for all 1 Billion Hindus."

Gautam Sen, a retired academic in the UK and a scholar of geopolitical issues concerning Indian civilization, was also incensed. His scathing criticism focused on how such a report feeds precisely those forces in UK and elsewhere that want to undermine Hindu dharma. He explained that there was considerable momentum built in the UK government and parliament to issue declarations against Hinduism which would have widespread legal repercussions. The HAF report played into the hands of such campaigns to prosecute Hinduism in UK, EU and UN legal frameworks. He felt that HAF had no business meddling in geopolitical matters that were over their heads and that could have severe consequences for millions of Indians, and became the first person to publicly call for the resignation of the HAF leaders:

"I am afraid the highly damaging HAF report on Caste must be repudiated decisively. The personal interests of the individuals in the HAF who sponsored it are of little moment given the damage the report itself has done to Hindus and the negative subsequent fall out that has resulted. I do not know any of these people personally though I have had cordial exchanges with some of them, indeed helped HAF reformulate their first human rights report. But I now believe that the three individuals directly involved in writing, sponsoring and defending the report should offer to resign. Whether that will suffice to restore the credibility of HAF remains to be seen. This is very bad news because they will first condemn caste here in the UK and then it will be ratified at the UNHCR and caste will conflated with Hinduism, which it has always been. Some discreet high level action is urgently required from India to express strong disapproval."

Once the floodgates opened, numerous other voices came out to criticize HAF for what is now being viewed as an irresponsible and dangerous initiative.

I will now give my own comments on this report. I have no doubt that we, like all religions, must always be aware of our internal problems and aggressively solve them for our own good. My main point will concern the following: which side in this kurukshetra of civilizations should control the discourse on Hindu matters - the Hindus themselves or outside government bodies in places like Washington?

'Caste' is Now a Dangerous Geopolitical Game

The report writers appear to be naïve and simply clueless about the report’s realpolitik impact for India in international affairs. It would be entirely different had the report been circulated for discussion within Hindu spiritual communities seeking to further root out adharma in their societies. All religions are obliged to self-correct, root out the injustices in their midst and remain perpetually vigilant and engaged in this effort. Indeed Hindu dharma calls upon us to do this.

But this report has been written to be explicitly targeted for distribution in places like the United States Congress. Leave aside for a moment, the issue of how HAF believes that they even have the authority, mandate and consensus to represent India to American lawmakers. Hindu Americans, a minority immigrant community, are hardly the perpetrators of caste discrimination in the US, and they seek their advocacy groups to help ameliorate the racial and religious prejudice targeted at them in the media, schools and higher education. HAF seems to have shifted its focus from its intended US based constituency to India's domestic affairs! This is the context in which the report has to be evaluated.

The defenders of HAF's report focus on how and why caste related problems must be addressed. Indeed, they must be and are being addressed, by political parties in India and by thousands of Hindu spiritual leaders, NGOs, activists and engaged citizens. Unfortunately, HAF seems unconcerned about the implications of using Western rather than Indian political and legal forums. I have raised these concerns: Are the legal mechanisms of USA, UK, EU and UN the right forums that ought to be brought to bear upon India’s issues? What has been the Western governments' track record over the past several centuries of bringing such "human rights" to others around the world? Did India not learn its lessons from the colonial experience in this regard? Such legal bodies are not forums for metaphysical debates. They are mechanisms for international interventions.

Given that HAF declares caste in India to be "a human rights violation," the consequences under International Human Rights Law (to which India is a signatory) are unavoidable. Naively, the report later on (page 56) tries to cover HAF with a contradictory statement that "caste-based discrimination in India should be treated purely as an internal matter of a sovereign state and that India’s caste problem should not become internationalized by NGOs who want secondary gain." Imagine that a family member goes public to apologize for child abuses or other criminal activity occurring within his home, and later in his written confession says, "but we don't want the police to interfere with our family's internal affairs." Does HAF assume that such a confession will not bring prosecution! On what grounds, with what expertise, with who’s counsel and by what right has the HAF “pleaded guilty” and incriminated us all, not just psychologically but also potentially politically and financially?

Similarly, after supplying detailed ammunition on caste abuses occurring today, the report contradicts itself by asserting that caste is not to be equated with apartheid or race (page 45-6). This assertion cannot be a simple one-liner that will be taken at face value. It would need a comprehensive argument on why caste as described so graphically by the report is not apartheid or race. The report has 20 pages (pp. 58-77) of several numbered lists with highly sensational and graphic stories of caste based atrocities, such as rapes, sex trade, denial of access to temples and water, common food areas, inter-caste marriages, economic exploitation, manual scavenging, bonded labor, violence, government bias, police custody, etc. How does HAF plan to prevent the Christian missionaries (that have supplied most of these examples in the first place) from equating it with apartheid and race?

The report cites that there were 33,615 human rights violations in 2008 in India, without having done any due diligence on the reliability of such precise cases. Anyone dealing with such statistics in India knows that there are numerous rival statistical claims on whether such data is valid. In India it is very easy and common to file a "report"; hence, to legitimize such statistics that are mere "claims" simply plays into the hands of Hinduphobics who have a machine to gather such data on Hinduism and distribute it globally. HAF's 20 pages of random anecdotal incidents that are largely a rehashing of secondary data and hearsay has opened a mine field. It will serve as great fodder for Hinduphobic textbooks and media, precisely the kind that HAF has in the past tried to fight against.

HAF appears to be unaware of the extensive discourse developed by Hinduphobic groups in international fora to mobilize foreign intervention against India, using precisely the type of data that HAF is now providing. For instance, there are specific petitions and proposals that foreign investments should be linked to employing certain minority groups in India, with Christian and leftist groups being trained over the past several years to take advantage of this, and thereby fill their own pockets.

Undoubtedly, such interventions are a way to put Indian Christians in the driver's seat, because they hold the key positions of control in such mechanisms, and they have the international experience and momentum to carry this out. Just as President Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives were criticized as a way to financially empower USA's Christian organizations in the name of social service, so also this international lobbying in recent years is intended to channel international aid and corporate investments towards Christian organizations in India.

The report mentions Dalit Freedom Network (DFN) but is too soft on them, and it could be used by them to boost their credibility. HAF must point out DFN's treacherous role in promoting the Afro-Dalit identity combined with "empowerment training" (read: "activism and militancy"). Years ago, I debated Vijay Prashad, the US based communist, on his role in this movement. DFN's political power base emerges from the Washington connections of its lawyer, Melody Divine, who works in the office of US Congressman, Trent Franks of Arizona. DFN is not a Dalit group as assumed in Indian circles. It is run by white right-wing Christians out of a church in Colorado. The Articles of Incorporation filed at the Secretary of State's office says that it is a religious group. Joseph D'Souza, its poster boy, is a radical Christian featured on the website of Pat Robertson's 700 Club, a group for fundamentalist Christians. Kancha Ilaiah, another poster boy of DFN, is not a Dalit. He has claimed that Hinduism is a "spiritual fascist cult." ( Clearly, it is a hate group and a fake Dalit group. I wish HAF had read the recent book, titled, "Post-Hindu India," by Kancha Ilaiah, in order to understand the grand designs being sponsored by these global players.

Without pointing any of this out, HAF does acknowledge that DFN is missionary sponsored, but fails to distinguish between missionary motivated pseudo-Dalit organizations and genuine dharmic Dalit emancipation movements in the following vague statement: "We acknowledge that Hindu society has historically failed the SCs, and the Dalit movement is merely reaching out for allies in its quest for emancipation." (p.43) HAF should have studied scholars like Dharmapal, rather than conflating organizations like DFN with genuine social emancipation movements. Furthermore, to state in a blanket way that the "Hindu society has historically failed Dalits" is a statement borne out of historical illiteracy. In fact, Hindu Dharma has continuously generated great movements from within to secure the rights and human dignity of marginalized sections of the society even though colonial impoverishment affected the social emancipation process. Sri Narayana Guru, Mahatma Gandhi, Ayyan Kali are a few such examples where the Hindu society at large stood by Dalits and suppressed sections of the society. These need to be boosted, and not superseded by foreign interventions.

The report also gives credit to communists/leftists as solution providers for the "Hindu" problem: "There are also attempts to fight caste-based discrimination through the spread of Marxist (commonly referred to as Leftist in the Indian context) ideology that denies all notions of God and religion." (p.9) The report fails to explicitly bring out the fact that Indian leftists do not get rid of caste identity, but channel it and use it for their own purposes. People of Arundhati Roy's ilk are busy re-educating the Munda tribes of central India that they are the "original Indians," and that both "Aryans" and "Dravidians" are foreign invaders who have victimized them. This is inter-community civil war, not a "liberation" from caste identity.

The report also praises E.V. Ramaswamy Naicker (EVR) whose organization later gave birth to the present DMK party of Karunanidhi. This is yet another simplistic statement thrown into the report without any attempt to analyze this movement in detail. This movement today is precisely what the aggressive "Christian Dravidian" movement builds on. It is these folks who tried to destroy Ram Sethu; who have seized many Hindu temple assets; who have replaced official Hindu holidays with Christian ones; who have created a religious apartheid against Hindus in general and Dalit Hindu children in particular in government educational concessions; and who have devastated Hindu social capital in every manner they possibly could. Emboldened by the Dravidianist polity there was even an unsuccessful attempt by the Church to change the name of Kanya-Kumari to ‘Kanni Mary’ (Virgin Mary).

HAF claims that DMK "mainly represents the shudra castes of Tamil Nadu, preaches vehement atheism along with social reform." That is a very shallow and obsolete view. Today, this organization represents a conglomerate of interests with the common thread of being "anti-Aryan" and "anti-Hindu", for if there were no Aryan invasion then why would there be any need for a "Dravidian" identity movement in the first place? Those Hindus (such as HAF) who rightly fight the Aryan theories must understand that Dravidianism is its mirror image, and one cannot exist without the other. In order to intensify Dravidianism as a political force, the Aryan theory has to be constantly kept alive in the public consciousness. Nowhere in the world is a government more dependent on the Aryan theory for its survival than the DMK government. This is why they are supporting the church in its aggressive advocacy of a new history and politicized religion according to which the Tamil classics (both the Saiva Siddhanta and the Thirukural) were created under the Christian influence of St. Thomas! Yet HAF praises, without any semblance of analysis or discussion, that EVR was a great "reformer who successfully transferred social, political, and economic power to the numerically dominant shudra castes of Tamil Nadu." (p.43) This is a perfect example of how superficial knowledge can lead to counterproductive conclusions that defeat the writers' own stated goals!

The report says that the chief responsibility for solving caste based discrimination lies with Hindu institutions, "because they have the authority and following of nearly all members of all communities and castes." It is not at all clear what “Hindu institutions” HAF is referring to. Hinduism is not an organized religion that is institutionalized (in the manner of the Vatican in Catholicism, for instance.) Moreover, traditional Hindu institutions such as the mathas and pathashalas have been tremendously weakened in their influence over the Hindu masses, through colonialism and the politics of post-Independence India. The political, educational, cultural institutions and the media are predominantly controlled by secularized/non-Hindu interests; that is where the nexus of power in modern India rests. Many of the traditional Hindu groups that do have the capacity to initiate such changes have been highly regulated and controlled by government machinery in most Indian states. Political as well as missionary motivated leadership is increasingly encroaching this space of social authority, and creating more and more conflicts. In West Bengal and Kerala, the communists have controlled the institutions for many decades. In the states of the northeast as well as in Jammu and Kashmir, one can hardly claim that "Hindu institutions" control the authority. India's national security authorities admit that approximately one-third of all districts in the country have Maoist establishments, many of which literally control the local law and order - not any "Hindu institution" in charge.

If there is a necessity to present caste in international forums, the first Hindu advocacy report should feature the great work already being done by major Hindu organizations, and the concrete results they have produced since independence. This advancement is not trivial, even though a lot more work needs to be done. It would be irresponsible and not in the best interests of the downtrodden to undermine the Hindu organizations' programs that are being successful, and replace them with imported programs brought under International Human Rights Laws. There are so many Hindu organizations working hard on the ground on this issue, that deserve recognition, but unfortunately, only the church related and leftist groups are given international recognition. Christians participate in world forums by putting themselves on a strong footing, presenting all the great work they claim to do. They never start on a weak footing with any kind of "apology" externally. Where is the Christian apology for the slaughter and rape perpetuated during the Inquisition in India and subsequent atrocities by its missionaries, or the Islamic apology for terrorism done in its name? Why must Hindus grovel just to gain standing in front of Western institutions?

Can we imagine an Islamic group, that claims to be champions of Islam, to spread a report that condemns Sharia Law as a human rights violation, and that gives 20 pages of graphic and sensational incidents of Sharia based violations? The effects of this would be to support those who want Sharia Law outlawed by international bodies. Indeed, there are movements against Sharia Law, and a small number of liberal Muslims can be found among them. But these Muslims are not empowered and are on the fringes of legitimacy as spokespersons for Islam. They are not accepted as the voice of mainstream Islam.

I cannot imagine a Christian or Muslim group taking their cases of abuse within their community to some foreign capital, and submitting it to foreign legal authorities to get them involved in dealing with it. That's what many Indian rajas did before British colonial authorities when they had disputes among themselves, which they could not resolve internally.

HAF certainly has the right to position itself as a movement that seeks to undermine Hinduism's institutions in the same manner. But in that case, HAF should make its intentions public in front of its donors, and it should stop claiming to be speaking on behalf of the majority of Hindus. The report flies in the face of HAF's posture that it speaks for Hinduism, rather than against it.
This report will surely make HAF popular among the pseudo-secular crowd, Christian and Muslim groups, and Western academics of the kind one finds in RISA and AAR. HAF is free to cozy up to whomever it wants, but as a publicly supported organization, it has to be held accountable and answer to the serious concerns of its public constituency as to whether, and to what extent, it has been co-opted and is seeking to serve its own political/PR interests and/or the interests of others (such as its executives) whose interests may not align with those of the Hindu community.
Contradictions, Errors, Omissions and Misrepresentations

HAF conflates the traditional varna-jati two-dimensional structure with modern day one-dimensional "caste". It gives some lip service to the distinction, but fails to keep these notions separate. It slips quickly into conflating all three of these terms into a hotchpotch mess. The report claims to have found 30 mentions of "caste" in Bhagavad Gita and up to 20 verses mentioning "caste" in Rigveda. This backward projection of "caste" on to Vedic texts is a mix up between Vedic and western frameworks, which becomes a major pitfall for them. It shows a complete failure to understand the paradigm of Vedic thought, which they simply map on to the modern western social studies paradigm.

The failure to use dharma categories is typical of those who see Sanskrit terms as merely having symbolic (and perhaps "chauvinistic") significance, failing to appreciate that these terms are simply non-translatable. Thus, they end up collapsing the whole tradition using pseudo-secular categories from western social sciences found in US textbooks, which, ironically, HAF wants to fight against.
There is name-dropping of scholars in many places of the HAF report, leading Gautam Sen to write that some scholars have been "cited to insinuate intellectual legitimacy without really bothering with what they have had to say."

The report does not seem to understand varna when it says: "Historically, the varna system was more of a normative concept with little basis in social reality." (p.6) It mistranslates Kshatriya as merely king/soldiers, when in fact all governance, politics, legislation, courts and attorneys, and even NGO activism, are forms of "Kshatriyata" today. It fails to appreciate that untouchables were not only determined by ritual impurity, but also those who lost in battles against invading Muslims were turned into slaves, and often castrated as a condition for having their lives spared. Many jatis were made landless by the British in the system of "lagaan" (as explained in the popular movie) and draconian zamindari for colonial tax collection. The "gypsies" of Europe (whose self identity is "Roma people") are the untouchables of modern Europe, who were first taken as slaves from India to be sold in the slavery bazaars of Central Asia during Islamic rule. (See, for example the PhD. dissertation by Scott Levi, titled, "Hindus beyond the Hindu Kush: Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade." A short summary is available at: There have also been other dissertations written on slavery inside India during Islamic times, as well as under British rule.)

Many of these Indian slaves in Central Asia eventually won their freedom, and ran in directions away from India, reaching various parts of Europe where they got reclassified as the "gypsy" underclass. Yet the report asserts: "With the notable exception of Japan, the issue of caste-based discrimination is mostly confined to South Asian communities, and is generally one where Hindus are both the perpetrators and victims." (p.12)

A large part of the problem is the report's convoluted structure filled with contradictions, and lack of a clear thesis that is argued cogently. Nor is there any concrete call to action. This leads to ambiguity, such that anyone can use selective quotes from it as ammunition to make whatever case they choose to. In many instances, the report seems to be arguing against itself a few pages later, or it gives evidence pointing in one direction but makes an assertion in the opposite direction.

While also claiming to be protecting Hinduism from its opponents, it supplies ammunition to the opponents, such as: "Hindus must acknowledge that caste arose in Hindu society, that some Hindu texts and traditions justify a birth-based hierarchy and caste-bias, and that it has survived despite considerable Hindu attempts to curtail it. Caste-based discrimination represents a failure of Hindu society..." (p.1) It goes on to apologize on behalf of Hinduism over and over again, such as the following examples of scolding:

"The Hindu American Foundation (HAF) rejects explanations for the current situation that are occasionally proffered to gloss over caste-based discrimination: that India has laws in place that impose penalties on those who practice such discrimination, as well as laws that promote a robust system of caste-based affirmative action; that stratification of society existed, and continues to exist, in various forms in other countries besides India; that caste is likely a corrupted form of what was intended as a system of division of labor in ancient India and that this fact alleviates collective responsibility; that the much-maligned Manusmriti (one of the many ancient texts of Indian social law) was never the law of the land; and that caste-based discrimination exists even amongst Christian, Muslim and Sikh religious communities in India." (p.9)

"The caste system, as it has developed in the Indian subcontinent, is a birth-based hierarchy. What makes this caste system unique is that (i) its hierarchical and discriminatory presuppositions have pervaded and permeated very deeply in Indian society to an extent not seen anywhere else in the world; and (ii) it has withstood most attempts aimed at ending the practice right up until now... Unlike most social hierarchies, the caste system positioned the priests at the apex of the societal pyramid, even above the kings and princes, and has had the support of some of Hinduism’s numerous religious texts, especially those that dealt with rituals, law, and social organization. This functioned to embed it into the more orthodox elements of the belief system and in a way that has allowed it to survive to present day.(p.4)

"The whole system, along with its taboos and restrictions, is authenticated by religion or canon, thus implicating Hinduism in the eyes of many." (p.6)
The report's suggested solutions are hardly new, original or based on actual field work to establish their practical viability. For instance, the whole section on "Police reform" is a superficial view of too broad an issue, entailing a massive bureaucratic reform, one of many such "reforms" cited that would each require a whole written volume by experts and not just a few sweeping sentences. Such superficial treatment renders the exercise useless from a constructive standpoint. It is the sort of proclamation that college undergraduate social groups announce in every campus to "solve world problems."

HAF's methodology is flawed. It asked prominent Hindu spiritual and religious leaders to provide their positions on caste in very specific ways. The questions were worded as leading questions, intended to receive a certain kind of response. (For instance, they did not ask for information about what these Hindu organizations were already doing to help the under classes. That would have produced a different kind of report.) Most Hindu groups sent back some old materials they had written on caste in an unrelated context, and did not write anything fresh specific to this inquiry. HAF made the entire Section 8 of its report out of such materials. The questions and the responses did not touch upon the deeper issues I have raised here. Furthermore, HAF positioned this material as an endorsement of the report which it was not meant to be. HAF credited these groups for "taking time out of their very busy schedules to support HAF’s initiative." This was name-dropping to boost the report's credibility. Most of them had never read the HAF report.

De-Colonizing HAF

'Caste' is an imported word in the Indian lexicon that is often mixed up with the indigenous terms, varna and jati. The three terms are not interchangeable, and the mapping of dharmic terms to Western terms that do not correspond correctly results in major distortion and ambiguity in the substance of the report. The loss of indigenous categories in the report led to a loss of dharmic framework to understand and hence deal with issues from within the tradition, which does have a long history of addressing social issues internally without external intervention.
Jati refers to an age-old Indian social structure that goes across the boundaries of religion. It means "community" that is frequently an occupation-based group identity that emerged when skills (and hence professional capital) were passed down to one's children. This system of transmitting expertise as a form of social capital led to ultra specialized closely-knit communities for various kinds of work. The modern education system (which India has not successfully implemented on a universal scale) tries to provide expertise that is independent of the parents' occupation, potentially creating a more level playing field to compete based on expertise. Mobility of employment brings greater inter-mixing of communities, as evident in India's metropolitan sectors. Hence, the issues are more correlated with education and employment mobility than with religion any longer. Though caste abuses are to be denounced, it is rash to try to eliminate jati in an absolute manner.

Prof. Vaidyanathan of the prestigious Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, has spent years researching the role of jati-based economic empowerment. He cites World Bank and Indian government statistics to show that a large number of jati-based groups have used their internal cohesion to rapidly climb up the economic ladder. This phenomenon is what has made the "bottom of the pyramid" (a term coined by C.K. Prahalad) thrive in India, and has turned the rural areas into the fastest growing markets for industry. Referring to this kind of benefit of jati, Kalyanaraman says, "It is our social capital. We don't have to become apologists." Tom Friedman's "flat world" is a great idea for the top tiers of Indian society, but its trickle-down effect has not reached the bottom of the pyramid.

The western model of a society made of atomic individuals (EDITOR'S comment: and nuclear families that have fission and fusion potential) has led to the breakdown of families and communities. In such a model, the government social security is the only recourse for those who are handicapped, who fall on hard times, or are in old age. There is no local community support available very often. We know how this experiment has failed in the US where the social security system is virtually bankrupt. Is it ethical to export this failed model to India? In a poor country like India, the central government has even less chances of providing a safety net of social security to its vast population. Traditionally, the jati served as the safety net one turns to in times of distress. What would be the social security for Indians once devoid of closely knit communities that are held together by centuries of traditions and bonds? Already, in westernized cities such as Delhi, many elderly are being thrown out of their homes in this new era of western modernity that has arrived. There are "old age homes" now being built in Delhi for the first time. HAF better have a substitute in place, before dismantling the old structure too hastily.
Jati cohesion has also been a form of collective bargaining of rights, and even during Mughal and British times the rulers had to face their power of collective bargaining. Dissolving jati became a British strategy to get rid of local power that was in the hands of Indians. Today, when a jati structure gets eradicated, the vacuum left is often filled by church-run or madrassa-run collective identities. The church "congregation" and Islamic "umma" are the alternative "new jatis" waiting to take over. Thus, the role played by jatis for resisting against conversions must be understood.

Indeed, modern Indian democracy is increasingly driven by jati and similar identity formations. The two main political parties in India are becoming smaller in the percentage of votes they get, and the majority of votes in the elections go to the hundreds of small parties that focus on a given region, jati or combination. One must study the way these parties function by becoming a voice for a modern caste identity. The "caste problem" today, is a problem of perverted secularism for politicians' self-interests. It is the result of modern democracy that encourages vote bank politics and fragmented parties, and this is why Arun Shourie has proposed a US style central presidential system.

'Kshatriya Malpractice'

Sticking to my principle that professional critiques must focus on issues of substance, and not personalities, I would like to assert that there has to be a category of discourse dealing with Kshatriya Malpractice (a phrase I am coining), just as there is professional discussion on medical and legal malpractice. The point is that the intentions might be good, and I am willing to give the HAF leaders the full benefit of doubt as to their good intentions. But as in the case of medical malpractice, there can be Kshatriya Malpractice despite all the good intentions. The following is a list of specific lessons to be learned from this scandal in order to develop the notion of Kshatriya Malpractice further:

1. Confusing internal work with external kurukshetra: Those representing Hindu dharma must differentiate between what is an internal issue to resolve problems, as opposed to external issues in the global kurukshetra of today. They must avoid feeding ammunition to the likes of World Vision, Dalit Freedom Network, USCIRF and many others, by supplying them powerful quotes from a report by Hindus that support what these hostile organizations have been pushing for years, and that directly contradict the positions taken by Hindu groups in the forefront of important battles regarding the portrayal of Hinduism in the education system, etc. Any internal reforms or changes require internal deliberation and cooperation focused on grassroots activities and work, rather than issuing vague policy statements that make a lot of noise, but do not achieve any changes in the ground reality. The forum for beneficial changes is within India, not Washington DC.

2. Control over the debate: For a variety of reasons, the discourse on issues such as caste has been controlled in international circles by forces hostile to Hindu dharma - including Christians, western political hegemonies, Marxists and pseudo-secularists. Is HAF now supporting that discourse? Did it do a careful analysis of this point the way Rakesh Bahadur has pointed out forcefully? To the extent that such issues need to be addressed externally, such discussions should first focus on and compile the immense progress that Hindu groups have made in reducing social abuses, and present that. There should also be focus on the axiom that those in glass houses should not be the first to cast stones - i.e., what is the legitimacy of Western institutions in addressing internal social issues of India when they are plagued by the social ills of racism, growing wealth inequality, etc.?

3. Strategic planning capability: The board should evaluate its strategic thinking competence, and whether this kind of project was ill-conceived and poorly executed. It should introspect: What credentials does HAF have, and more particularly, the named authors of the report have, to claim to talk about caste and its position in Hinduism? What field work was done, how much of the scholarship was HAF’s original scholarship and to the extent it was not, how reliable was the secondhand data that HAF relied upon for its findings? Does HAF or the authors of this report have the adhikara or the authority to give broad statements that define what the “original” Hindu scriptures had to say about jati/varna? Also, on such a sensitive issue that would have serious ramifications for others working for the Hindu cause, why was consultation with other Hindu bodies and activists eschewed during the multiple years it took to write this report?

4. Accountability to donors: Just like politicians who make aggressive campaign promises and later find themselves trapped to deliver, one is left wondering whether HAF promised too many things for the money it raised, and hence had to act in panic to bring the report out. To show that funds are being well utilized, it has to periodically make a big splash in the media, and show how the media is covering it. The idea is to make the older generation of Hindu Americans feel proud that "our Hindu boys and girls" are becoming prominent, as if that ought to be a goal in itself.

5. Due process hijacked: HAF first publicly announced this project to publish such a report at a WAVES conference this past summer in Trinidad. At that time, I and many other scholars present were alarmed at the possible implications and fallout of such an initiative if undertaken without due care. We joined together to formally protest to HAF that what they had presented briefly of this project would be inappropriate to publish, without a detailed review by the rest of us. But HAF chose to proceed exclusively, and only involved those few who would agree with them. When I pointed this out after the report was released, I was viciously rebuffed for expressing my useless views on matters that I felt were critical to consider. People are concerned with the lack of internal due process to give Hindu voices an opportunity to express their positions. There was too much Washington style private lobbying to gather "votes" that say simple things like, "I support HAF", etc. An organization claiming to be the voice for 2 million Hindus in America cannot act unilaterally while at the same time expecting to be recognized as the “pre-eminent” voice for Hindus. If HAF wants to act unilaterally without being held accountable to anyone, then it will have to stand alone and cannot be assured of the support of the community at large.

6. Crisis management: The board should also evaluate whether the crisis management was unprofessional and in bad taste, making things even worse for HAF. The personal attacks launched by board members for the first four days of the scandal backfired on them very seriously, and it took them too long to recognize the damage they were causing themselves by going ballistic against their critics. Rather than trying to build consensus behind the scenes before publishing a controversial report, they fanned the flames of what has turned into a blog war.

7. Exclusivity: A Hindu advocacy group must represent the other Hindu groups as well and not only itself. HAF has been accused by many persons of usurping other Hindu groups' contributions in its quest for prominence. Also, it should not try to assume the policymaking role exclusively.

8. Need for mandate: One should introspect whether a Kshatriya group can legitimately try to represent Hindu dharma without any mandate (such as election of board members) from those it claims to represent. Serious consideration should be given as to whether corporate governance of the organization should be reformed to make it more transparent and accountable.

9. Media and PR brand management: Issuing letters to the editor and other press releases is one thing. It is an entirely different thing to issue an ill-conceived report that is presented as a definitive Hindu position on a complex and sensitive topic just to make a PR splash on International Human Rights Day, and to win points from US governmental bodies and the US mainstream press. Was there disregard for the collateral damage that would be caused by the report to the Hindu community, and a breach of HAF’s moral and dharmic duty to its constituents and supporters? This is what I mean by malpractice. I agree that HAF must become important in order to represent us effectively, but has there been too much craving for personal media coverage, and "who" supports the report as the overriding criteria of success?

10. Sellout vulnerability: I do not wish to accuse HAF of selling out at this point. But some caution is needed to prevent that from happening. I regret the reliance upon Prof Diana Eck of Harvard as the endorser to make HAF feel legitimate. She has worked for us and against us in the past, and is very political. Of course we need important persons as friends. But on whose terms? In the past, colonial rulers won over a segment of the colonized by making them feel "important" and "legitimate", and in the bargain squeezed out those voices that were more challenging. This is how resistance gets diluted over time, be it corporate management dealing with a labor union, or an imperial power dealing with natives in the frontier. Seeking appointments in Washington, coverage in the western press, and endorsements from western academics is fine, provided that this does not take priority over uncompromising loyalty to one's client.

The New Washington Politics on Hinduism

The recent mid-term elections has been a big boost for right-wing Christians joining the US Congress in large numbers starting in January, 2011. Obama is on the defensive and eager to make "deals" with them, sacrificing those items to their wishes that he does not consider critical to his own agenda. Hinduism has always been on the brink of US Congressional sanctions and US pressure that would amount to interference in India on the ground of "human rights." I have warned of this for over a decade, such as in my series of articles on about the role of South Asian academics in feeding such anti-India policies.
The new buzz of excitement in these radical right-wing Christian circles is that this is the right time to introduce bills in the US Congress whose ultimate effect would be to pressure the Indian government on certain social policies. Demands will be made that could try to: (1) open the floodgates for massive faith-based funding from overseas, in the guise of human rights, far more openly than before; (2) enact laws or policies in India to curtail Hindu voices further; (3) require that US corporate activities and investments in India should give employment preference to certain "minorities" and "oppressed" peoples, and Christian groups have prepared their ground forces in India over several years to pounce on this opportunity and claim the lion's share of the benefits; and (4) start prosecuting caste-based "human rights violations" under international laws.

I fear that HAF is acting under the pressure to either soften its stand in defending Hinduism, or face the music that could sideline it in these debates. The carrot available, if it plays ball according to the way the game is managed, would be that they would get a seat at the table of debates that would give them prestige. This is a dangerous game for HAF to enter without adequate supervision and wider consultation from its Hindu support base. Being prone to quick media brand recognition is a typical weakness that gets exploited as a vulnerability. Mere sincerity and good intentions are not adequate safeguards against this, when the stakes are so high. HAF might end up as the fools who’ve fallen into the trap set by knaves.


Gandhiji and the Caste System in his Village Republic


Dr. Vijaya Rajiva

Gandhiji’s ideal village republic which he called the Rama Rajya (the Kingdom of Rama) there would be no distinctions of caste and it would also be a classless society. This much is well known as also his fight against Untouchability (as it was then called).

What most people do not know is that he made a distinction between varna and jatti and he also endorsed jatti as a form of social organization which would be occupation based.He felt that pride in one’s occupation would help in consolidating the individual’s professionalism and expertise. This does not mean that caste (jatti) should be hereditary by compulsion. An individual is free to break free of the caste in which he is born and adopt a different occupation.

Varna as he rightly saw it, was a broad based division of labour into intellectual/spiritual ,political/military, commercial/economic and agricultural. He supported this division of labour as long as it did not end up with discrimination towards any particular division. In other words, it should not be hierarchical.

Needless to say, he did not endorse the colonial attempt to divide Hindu society by granting separate electorates to the Untouchables(the Dalits). And today he would endorse a limited affirmative action on behalf of the scheduled castes and other backward castes. It could not be a program in perpetuity since the idea is to integrate them into the rest of Hindu society, rather than maintain divisions.

Today, this is basically also the philosophy of the Sangh Parivar and it differs from the foreign/Western inspired attempts to distort Hinduism as in the recent attempt to introduce the question of the caste system as a form of racism. Both the Parivar and Gandhiji would argue that this is an unacceptable interference in the domestic and internal workings of the Indian social fabric.

It is for Indians to sort this out for themselves and not be patronized by the West. There are reports that when the Archbishop of Canterbury was in India recently he had the ear of Ms.Sonia Gandhi, the President of the Congress Party and sought her support for the initiative to bring up the question of casteism being a form of racism at the UN. Since the Government of India has not protested at this blatant interference (however well intentioned it may be) in Indian affairs one can only conclude that the Italian Catholic president of the Congress is continuing in the footsteps of British colonials. (Editor's Note: These words were written by the author long before the HAF report. Has HAF fallen into the hands of such alien elements who have been itching to intrude into internal matters of India?)

There is a legitimate fear on the part of far sighted Hindus that this might be a ploy to further the Christian/Western drive to subjugate peoples whom they once ruled over and are now independent nations. The present writer believes that the zeal of these Western inspired moves will only muddy the waters rather than allow for the natural processes of urbanization and modernization to break down unacceptable barriers.

The word ‘unacceptable’ is used deliberately since the movement of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch regards the organization of Indian society in swadeshi terms, that is, in maintaining some form of jatti (caste) economic organization. This is very similar to the Gandhian village republic, where agriculture is the dominant occupation, but also has handicrafts and small scale industries. Small is beautiful is quite a challenge in contemporary India where the idea of India as propounded by people like Nandan Nilekani speaks in the context of large is beautiful (Imagining India,2009). The predicted rising economic growth of 8% plus is an urban vision which may be sustainable in the short term but will leave large swathes of the population behind.

Economists of the Swadeshi Jagran Manch have written intelligently about the prosperity engendered by the ongoing jatti system (S.Gurumurthy). To generalize this onto the larger Indian economy will be the challenge.

In such a context it is ill advised for well intentioned Westerners to muddy the waters. The Dalits and the OBCs (Other Backward Castes) will not benefit from this interference. It will also generate the suspicion that this is not about humanitarian principles of equality and fraternity but another way of attacking an ancient civilization that has endured for millennia.

Old wine in new bottles.

(The writer is a Political Philosopher who taught at a Canadian university)

Friday, December 17, 2010


Evidence of Mahabharata from Outside the Indian Subcontinent


Narayan Joshi,Ph.D.


Ramayana and Mahabharata have special place in the hearts of Indian people. The fabric of Hindu culture is woven with characters and values of heroes from these two epics. Among all heroes Rama and Krishna are worshipped by Indian people with loving hearts. Both epics were recited by people with devotion years after years. Stories of heroes from these two epics were retold thousands of times for character building of children in homes and schools. Almost all Indian people believed in the incidents described in these epics as having actually taken place in prehistoric times. Hence they are part of the ancient Indian history in the Hindu or Indian psyche regardless of their historicity. However there are Indian and alien scholars who believe otherwise.

Mahabharata is Mythology

If alien scholars dismiss Mahabharata as mythology, it is not a surprise. What surprises most Indians is that Indian scholars also accept alien views and dismiss Mahabharata as mythology. I offer one example. In January 2001, Dr. Amartya Sen, Nobel Laureate economist, in annual conference of Indian History Congress at Alipur Campus of the University of Calcutta, while addressing delegates, said that Ramayana and Mahabharata do not have any historical value. These two epics are simply mythology and nothing but poets’ fancy. He also said that neither Rama nor Krishna was a historical personality and both of them were simply mythological.

These scholars are engaged in simply guesswork without giving us any concrete evidence. Some of them present us few names of rivers from Afghanistan and others talk superficially about Hindu Vedas and Iranian Avesta. Most of the information of these scholars is based on the theory of Aryan invasion (diluted to migration recently) promoted by alien (foreign) scholars in order to demote or discredit the ancient Indian antiquities. Discovery of Indo-European family of languages by Europeans and Anglo-Saxon (British) people, and their occupation
of India coincided and it was in the great interest of British rulers of India to rewrite the ancient history of India to suit their political agenda.

Archaeology of the Subcontinent

Archaeological discoveries from India and Pakistan in the past 100 years are not of any great help in proving historicity of Mahabharata. There are diverse opinions about the decipherment of Indus script. Moreover thousands of samples of script found in excavations were taken outside of the subcontinent by alien researchers. Many Indian scholars of diverse background like medical, engineering, sciences, and humanities have some knowledge of astronomy and astrology. Due to their interest in Mahabharata they also have tried to fix the year of Mahabharata war. Many of them arrived at the date somewhere between 3200 BC and 3000 BC. To the best of my knowledge nothing that old pointing to Mahabharata has been discovered in the soil of the subcontinent during archaeological excavations except those pointing to what is now called the Indus-Sarasvati civilization. But it has its own problem about decipherment of Indus script to the satisfaction of both indigenous and foreign scholars. Certainly pottery pieces that old are always found but would that be enough to prove that Hastinapur and Indraprastha were somewhere in north India?

Five Cities Claimed by Pandava Brothers

People of India are proud of Hastinapur and Indraprastha, which were world capitals according to some of them. Although no concrete archaeological evidence so far came forward for their existence in north India, north Indians are eager to show their locations somewhere in Uttar Pradesha or Harayana. They even claim that five villages claimed by five Pandava brothers were Sonapat, Marpata, Panipat, Indapat and one more in the same area. However, the names of five cities (not villages) claimed by five Pandava brothers were Indraprastha, Avisthala, Vrikasthala, Varanavata and Makandi (capital of the south Panchala of the king Drupada) as per Mahabharata. In short, general belief of people may be different from actual references in the epic. This happens because the original Mahabharata is in Sanskrit and very few people nowadays have knowledge of Sanskrit, nor time and patience to read the epic in detail. Many read short stories from Mahabharata. Scholars differ again on different editions of the epic. Some of them claim that there are many interpolations in the epic over the known Indian history of 2500 years.

Indian Dried-up Sarasvati River

To my questions about the population that was extant in the rest of the world when Mahabharata war was fought in India and about the existence of Indo-European language family, some Indian scholars reply saying, “In the ancient prehistoric times Indians pushed their brothers beyond Khyber Pass based upon the story of children (Anu, Druhyu, Yadu and Puru) of Yayati.” So they are not interested to know anything outside of India in order to understand Mahabharata history. Recently patriotic Indians are happy with discovery of dried-up Sarasvati River in Rajasthan area. Now their resolve not to look outside of India is even fortified by the book of a western scholar promoting the dried-up Sarasvati River of the subcontinent. But I have a different problem. I found Sarasvati outside of India. Not one but many Sarasvatis outside of the subcontinent.

Unsatisfied with the present research I decided to perform my own research of the epic. There was a second reason for this. My research in Phonemic symbolism (Varnavada) was telling me that Sanskrit is a special language. But alien scholars of Indo-European language family are firm believers that Sanskrit was developed in Indian subcontinent from the mixture of language of invading Aryans and indigenous linguistic elements. Due to similarities between Vedas and Avesta some of them believe that Sanskrit was brought to India from ancient Iran. So I decided to go into the ancient history of countries immediately west of Pakistan, namely Afghanistan and Iran.

Sarasvati of Afghanistan

I found river Sarasvati in Afghanistan, not one but seven Sarasvatis. It was a psychologically troublesome discovery because I was a great believer of Triveni Sangama of Ganga, Yamuna and Sarasvati in north India. Not only I found Sarasvati outside of India but also I found Ganga and Yamuna outside of India. At this stage my mind started oscillating with thoughts;- did Indian River names went outside or outside river names came to India? Where is the truth? The proponents of “Out of India” theory will support the first possibility while the proponents of “Aryan invasion theory” will support the second possibility. In order to find the truth destiny took me to the ancient history of all countries outside of India in my research in the past 28 years. It changed me completely. Now in front of my eyes the whole Mahabharata unfolded not only over north India but also over the whole Eurasian continental landmass.

Prehistoric Europeans Show Asian Features

The news article appeared in August 7, 2007 issue of daily Beaumont Enterprise, USA. In the online edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the international team of researchers reported that Asians appear to have played a larger part in the settlements of Europe than did Africans. The team led by Maria Martinon-Torres of the National Center for the Investigation of Human Evolution, in Burgos, Spain, reached that conclusion after analyzing more than 5000 fossil teeth from early hominins, an early form of human predecessors. After studying ancient teeth from Africa, Asia and Europe, the researchers report that early European populations had more Asian features than African ones.

Brown Masters of White Europe

Donald A. Mackenzie in his book on India reviews the problem of Aryan origin. He suggested that there existed brown masters of the white European population in prehistoric Europe. The migration of the cremating people through Europe was westward, southward and northward. If the ancient people did migrate from Asia to Europe in prehistoric times why did they go to Europe? Did circumstances force them to move or they were surrounding their enemies? Here comes my research on Mahabharata. Where did the war take place--- in India or in Samanta Panchaka? And where was the Samanta Panchaka?

What will you find in my book?

You will find that the epic war was a global conflict. You will find many nations of the epic spread over Eurasian landmass. You will find Ladies’ kingdom of the epic outside of the subcontinent. You will find Indra’s Nandanavana outside of India. You will find Mahabharata dynasties ruling the countries outside of the subcontinent in the known history. You will find Indian River names given to European rivers. The book will raise many new questions in your mind. Where were Dvaita-vana, Kaamada-vana, Kaamyakavana, Khaandava-vana and Khaandava-prastha whose capital was Indraprastha? Please look forward to reading my book-"Evidence of Mahabharata from Outside of India."

N. R. Joshi.

Saturday, December 11, 2010




Seshachalam Dutta, Ph.D.

Edited and partially modified by Shree Vinekar

Some critics of caste system, mainly those who support the status quo, argue that there was never a "caste problem" other than that created by colonial rulers. While it is not entirely true, there is substantial contribution by the British rulers to accentuate the problem when they found this weakness in Hindu Society, and took advantage of the divisions, and further institutionalized the castes, legally protecting the system by codifying through discriminatory laws. It all started with William Jones, an 18th century British Jurist and linguist who took interest in Hindu scriptures, Manusmruti in particular... Jones is referred as an “Indologist,” a designation used by Westerners, for describing those among them with a smattering of knowledge of Sanskrit, not by any measure scholars, but who also have sparse knowledge of Indian History. In their writings they make outrageous speculations on Indian History, Archeology and Anthropology with no formal training in any of these disciplines. For instance, one such theory advanced by such Indologists is that Pallava kings of South India were Iranian invaders because the word Pallava rhymes with “pahalvis,” an Iranian word! The exclusive club of Indologists without any Indians included among them, inhabit mainly in poorly funded basement departments in academic institutions in Britain and the U.S and are patently hostile to Hindu scholars who question their wild speculations. They are the relics of colonial past. Theirs is a colonial mindset to analyze India’s antiquity as primitive culture to be explored by the colonial scholars. There is no comparable discipline as Americanologist, Francologist or Grecologist in the lexicon.

Coming to Manusmruti, according to Puranas, Manu, the author of
Manusmruti was born at the beginning of the cycle of creation (kalpa) to give the laws to people. Historically, however, the author of Manusmriti is dated to be not earlier than 200B.C, for there was no reference to his work in Chanakya’s Arthashastra or in Vedas and Vedangas. Manu’s work which deals with ethics, statecraft, and organization of society was perhaps based on the existing contemporary customs, traditions and practices (aachara) incorporating the genius of Hindus which only he formalized as a legal code. It is important to emphasize that this code never reached the southern part of India and never appears to be enforced as written by him. It only came to prominence when William Jones, the linguist brought it to light in the late 1800 ACE which excited the foreigners. There was vicarious pleasure for Westerners to feel good that Hindus who pride in spirituality and humanism practiced near slavery and oppression of their own people, so they themselves need not feel ashamed of their treatment of subjects. Indians often bog down on discussion of relative severity of Caste discrimination of Hindus with racial and social injustices of the Western society. Any such defense is not only needless but meaningless. Hindus never had slavery, never sold the fellow human beings, even those conquered in the wars; never lynched the slaves which was a practice in the U.S until the second World War. There was nothing comparable in India to the vassals and nobles in Europe. Even the Hindu authors of fiction, who portrayed Rakshasas (Demons) as most cruel, could not envision the cruelty of Emperors of Rome, or of Nazis or not even of the Abu Graib prison. So it is useless to compare the Western culture of the past with a Hindu antiquity. This should not mean that we should ignore or deny the truth in our analysis of caste system. Denying the truth is an escape from responsibility to deal with it.

There are many facts pointing to the lack of relevance of Manusmruti as Vedic standard. Manu’s appalling view of place of the woman in society is a case in point. It is unfortunate that Woman throughout history gave everything to her man, children and family and lived in suffering in all cultures and at all times, as the Old Testaments says that she was accursed to love and live in sorrow. This was not the view of Hindu Rishis of Rig Veda. The wife and husband, being equal of one substance and equal in every respect, Rig Veda says (5th Mandala, 6 and 8) that that both should join and take part in all work, religious and secular (sahadharma charini). This is not the view of Manu. Never-the -less he had admirers both in the East and the West. Friederich Nietzsche, a German philosopher who had similar contempt like Manu’s for women and “common man” extolled Manu as ideal for western world. Dayanada Saraswati of Arya Samaj admiring the overall work, attributed the worst and revolting parts of the Smruti to the interpolation of the bad Brahmins; blame the Brahmins to exonerate the author! Linguistically, Manu’s work was the product of a single author according to the experts. So, it is easy to surmise that Manu was only following the contemporary practices, with or without Vedic authority.

As far as Shudras working for poor Brahmins, as most scholarly sections of their caste were indeed poor, there is no evidence that such an offer was taken up by the Shudras hoping for better birth in next life as advocated in Manuismruti. This Smruti, therefore, was only useful for colonial scholars to denigrate Hindus.

Coming to the subject of the Shudras ruling the country, it is well established that both before and after Manu, both great empires of Maurya and Nanda were founded by Shudras. In Mahabharata Ithihasa, when Dharmaraja wanted to offer the honor of Rajasuya to Lord Sri Krishna, Shishupala objected saying that he (Krishna) was of low caste (cattleman) Yadava and not a Kshatriya and that Senile Bhishma had lost his mind for recommending him. Krishna answered by cutting of his head! In Mahabharata war, while forces were arraigned for battle, a Vaishya king took the offer of Pandavas and switched the sides. Shudras, mlechhas and non- Kshaktriya rulers were so prevalent that the Bhagavata Purana prognosticates that in Kaliyuga (future ages) Shudras will rule the earth! As of the writing of the purana, that might have been obvious state of affairs. During later times there were Vaishya kings in 11th century C.E and Jain kings in many parts of the country. The Vijayanagara Empire was ruled by Krishnadevaraya, a shudra. It is, therefore, clear that Manusmruti has no historical relevance.


Once caste that was well defined to a large extent, but not exactly, is that of Brahmins, who are distinguished with lineage to Rishis called Gotras, originally forty of them but later multiplied with real and imaginary names of Rishis. The word Gotra comes from the location of cow sheds of Rishis (gooyate anena gaastrayate gosamuhacheti Gotram) members are also distinguished by Shikha and Charana. These distinctions make it difficult, if not impossible to break into this caste by other communities. However, with the absorption of Buddhism and Jainism, there was commingling of others, some returning to Hindu society, creating more Gotras sometimes naming after fictitious Rishis for their origin. The most surprising of all, some of the Vaishnava Acharyas began giving Gotras for Shudras, although they did not fit into the definition. As the times went by, the term Gotra was modified to include the names of the progenitors.


After the decline of Jainism in South India, jains integrated into Hindu society. The followers of Gomateswara called Komatis designated themselves as Vaishyas. Some say that the word Komati came from Gomathi, river Godavari where a Vaishya king ruled during 11th century C.E. As a trading class they became very prosperous and called themselves Vaishyas. During early 1800s in Machililipatnam (A.P) they performed Upanayana (thread ceremony) officiated by vaidic Brahmins. They took the Gotras of Rishis, which enraged a class of non-Vaidic Brahmins (Niyogis). The Niyogis invaded the houses and disrupted the services. This happened several times during the years 1784-1825, causing loss life by employing violent hired hands by Brahmins. In the year1905 the Komatis formed an Association called not simply Vaishya but Arya-Vaishya Association, indicating of Aryan descent and successfully registered themselves as such with the Government of Madras in 1921.

Other non-Brahmin communities also merged with each other losing their original identities. Before industrialization Indian families lived in rural communities confined mostly within 20 mile radius, sometimes for centuries unless forced to migrate by famine and other natural disasters. Later, with the improvement in communications and educational status, extensive migrations occurred when caste identification became self certification. As an example, an officer's son of a washer-man or a pot maker or a basket weaver would acquire other caste titles and rightly so as they abandoned their meager profession. So many others with less reputable caste background would acquire the caste identity of other more prosperous communities, but sometimes as sub-caste with hyphenation like Naidu and perika-Naidu or Reddy and Dehashuru-Reddy, motadi-Reddy and innumeral other hyphenated subcastes. The coalescing of castes and subcastes was extensive among the so called “backward “classes.”

While this integration among Hindus is welcomed, the reverse identification occurred by Government action of offering educational and Job preferences. Each year the State Governments in India published listing of Backward Castes (B.C) and the list changed each year. The students and their parents listed their children as B.C for tuition preferences or admission into professional schools. But as the listing changes each year, each child in the same family is registered under different sub-caste! Now the Government of India wants to fix the problem by taking census making the caste a permanent fixture. While it may be administratively convenient, it is short-sighted for it would impede the process of integration of Hindu society. Sometimes this integration was achieved after great effort by various social and religious reformers, beginning with Buddha, Ramanujacharaya, and Naanak in the past and by Brahmosamajists at the turn of the century that paid a heavy price by getting excommunicated.

In our times many well meaning people of all political persuasions both left right and middle have supported the integration of society by elimination of caste. P. Sundaraih, the secretary of Communist party of India dropped the caste title Reddy and persuaded his other family members to do so. Gora (Goparaju Ramachandra Rao) worked all his life to eliminate caste. Then there are writers like Gurijada Appa Rao who wrote the famous play Kanya Shulkam (dowry from the bridegroom) translated in many languages, worked towards the same goal to the end of his life. In this play the heroin Madhura Vaani (devadasi) asks a social reformer advocating elimination “naach” (prostitution) practice that she was what she was by divine ordinance, not by free choice and who would marry her and what happens if he eliminates the legal prostitution? Surprised, he answers that he never thought of it. Now the Government of India is asking this woman and her children and grand children to designate themselves to belong to this community for fistful of rupees as academic aid or preference for Government jobs!

While there are many at personal level try to reform the Hindu society of Caste, there is no organized effort in this direction other than by one organization. That organization is Rashtria Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) which for 85 years advocated removal of caste among their volunteers. Working with children, they were asked not to seek the caste of others or declare theirs, a sort of “don’t ask and don’t tell policy”. This has become their lifelong culture. Unfortunately it did not make a dent in the larger society. Oftentimes, even though caste title is dropped, the family name makes caste evident like, for example, names like Trivedi, Agnihotri etc. A lifelong Swayamsevak who became the secretary of BJP in India still carries the title Naidu (Venkaih Naidu). Communists who are dedicated to Marxian dialect and Universalism could not avoid that either. As bemoaned by Late Basavapunnaih the Communist leader of Andhra, when the Communist party of Andhra split into two, CPI and CPM, it was along the caste lines Reddy vs. Kamma.

Coming to political alignment of Castes, it is not the highest cast (Brahmin) suppressing the lowest. Brahmins in most states face reverse discrimination. From the feudal and landed aristocracy corresponding class system emerged underlying their castes, a combination very recalcitrant to change. It is recalcitrant, as the class system can admit new rich, caste would obstruct any neo-wealthy by keeping the wealth in the same segregated group fortified by endogamy and often even by consanguinity such as maternal uncles marrying nieces. Thus political economic power is concentrated in the feudal and landed aristocracy which presents a face of traditional castes, but essentially they are privileged classes. Remove the caste mask and what you find beneath is the class. It is not the case of high caste oppressing the lowest as portrayed by those who have not followed the development in India. In this environment, while Brahmins are subject to reverse discrimination, Dalits, the upcoming political group is organizing to get preferential treatment and an amalgamation of castes, generally poor or middle class are competing with Dalits for political favors by designating themselves as “backward communities”. Muslims who ruled India for 600 years and who are by any economic index superior to average Hindus would like to be classified as “backward.” The ruling congress wants to add Christians to this group. The ruling classes would like to throw some crumbs to these groups to keep their power. The caste problem in India is not the High caste Brahmins suppressing the Dalits as portrayed by the Indologists like Wendy Doniger. At least in one State, Andhrapradesh familiar to the author, this political alignment is clear. In the recent cabinet Ministry in Andhra there are 14 Reddys among 39 and only one from Kamma caste the second largest group, an alternative to come to power. Would education eradicate this tribal division as some hoped? Not so. Educated immigrant Andhrites to the U.S mostly doctors, engineers and scientists formed along caste lines two organizations, one Kamma called TANA and the other ATA a Reddy organization reflecting the political and feudal alliance in their home State in India.

It is heartening that the opposition in Indian Parliament opposed and prevailed in opposing the collecting the caste based census. The feudal castes that held the power for over 100 years in Indian political system are happy with the current state of Hindu society playing one group against the other. These castes after amassing ill-gotten wealth by corruption which is endemic in India have fortified caste with class and are resisting the change. What is in store for India is that these groups will transform the old feudal wealth to Banking and Industry as it happened in Britain. In Britain Class system had been as exclusive as caste. For instance, Robert Clive who amassed enormous wealth in Bengal was not admitted into Lordships when he returned to England. There were general apprehension when Jack Kennedy ran for the presidency in the U.S that he would not be supported or voted in by the ruling class of WASPS (White Anglo-Saxon protestants) as he came from Irish-Catholic family. The upstart wealthy families were addressed by a derogatory term as nouveau riche (new rich). The issue of ruling castes in India is similar to Ruling classes in the West and cannot be eliminated until the state becomes totalitarian. It has nothing to do with any religion, much less with Hinduism.

With all obstacles outlined we end this discussion with a great hope for Hindu reformation. Growth of middle class which Indira Gandhi feared supporting Hindu Nationalists, universal education, large scale emigration to the West are impacting on changing the fabric of Hindu society. Forty years ago Matrimonial advertisements in Indian immigrant News Papers, specified caste almost universally, now after 40 years the most of the ads read “caste- no bar” while still declaring the caste of the advertiser! This is a small change, but more will come lest they lose their total identity. The only way casteism will disappear in India is to let the natural process of integration work without Governmental interference and incentivizing the backward communities with meager preferences to keep them separated.

Sunday, November 28, 2010


"Mahabharata: History or Myth"
"Internal Beauty of Sanskrit"


Dr. N. R. Joshi

Editor's Note: intends to publish articles and
summaries of Dr. N. R. Joshi's two papers published and soon to be
published by the prestigeous Journal of the Bhandarkar Oriental
Research Institute (BORI).

The paper on Mahabharata will elucidate that the Indian Historians
recognized the spread of ancient Indians towards Far East into Viet
Nam and Indonesia, but totally ignored the migration towards Iran and
Greece,and Scandinavia, thus becoming geographically "Indo-centric" in
their views regarding Mahabharata.

The paper on the "Internal Beauty of Sanskrit" will illustrate how
the Indian and Western linguists missed an opportunity to unravel
the mystery of Sanskrit as a "designer language"
and how the clues were there embedded in Sanskrit to discover that it
was originally a specially designed language that was later enriched
while retaining its internal beauty.

Both of these contributions by Dr. N. R. Joshi are revolutionary in
in nature and will lead to controversy at first as most new ideas and
discoveries do.

However, as a Ph.D. in Metallergical Engineering and Material Science
specializing in Ultrasound Technology he was led to this research by
studying Sanskrit sounds and how they are put together. In elaborating
his original ideas he has now given the Sanskrit Scholars in India
food for thought and a new direction to understand the etymology of
Sanskrit words. He received a long overdue honor in India by
receiving a recognition worthy of a Sanskrit Pundit.

Readers are urged to stay tuned to this blog to read these innovative
contributions that will focus on the Westward migration of the ancient
Indians, the import of which was totally missed by the British, other
Western, and Indian historians.

The readers will also learn the originality of Sanskrit language and
how the Westward migration of Sanskrit explains the futility of
theories looking for a mother language for Latin and Sankrit as well
as all Indo-European Languages.

Both papers accepted by BORI will be tour de force in modern

Dear Readers of "Sookta-Sumana":

This year I took a trip to India to meet Indian scholars and exchange views on my favorite research topics, “Mahabharata History or Myth” and “Internal Beauty of Sanskrit.” Certain aspects of these topics were discussed by me in the interviews for the weekly papers like Voice of Asia and India Herald. Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI) of Pune published my research paper, “Sphota Doctrine in Sanskrit Semantics Demystified” in the 2007 Annals of the BORI.

In the past 2500 years of known history of India, Sanskrit scholars are discussing semantics (meanings of words) of Sanskrit because the origin of Sanskrit is lost in the unknown ancient history of India. The same is true in case of Mahabharata history. Not much archeological evidence has come forth from the soil of the subcontinent. So I collected evidence in support of history of Mahabharata from sources outside India.

My first power point presentation on “Mahabharata History or Myth” was arranged by Dr. Vijaya Bedekar in K. G. Joshi College, Thane. More than 30 students and faculty members were present. The program ended with many questions and discussions on the new information I presented. My niece Rekha and her husband (High court advocate Paithane) were present for the lecture.

My friend and Indology scholar Dr. Pramod Pathak, who used to live in Houston, invited us to visit Goa University. Dr. Chandralekha of Goa University arranged our presentations. Dr Dhadphale of BORI talked on General Linguistics while I made power point presentation on “Internal Beauty of Sanskrit”.

Dr. Saroja Bhate, the secretary of BORI was kind to arrange my lecture on May 11. The topic chosen was “Mahabharat History or Myth”. Around 52 scholars were present. This was my first opportunity to address top level Indian scholars in a large hall of the BORI. The presentation was followed by question and answer session. My family members Divakar and Madhuri Joshi, Vandana Inamdar and Vedanta scholar Praachi Gumaste were present for the lecture. The news of my presentation at BORI appeared next day in the local newspaper, “Lokamata”. The research paper based on my talk at BORI was invited by BORI for publicaton and it was submitted to BORI. It is in the process of being published in the Annals of BORI.

My next stop was Hyderabad. Dr. Amba Kulkarni and Dr. Subrahmanyam Korada were kind enough to make arrangement for my lecture at a short notice in their department of Sanskrit studies of the University of Hyderabad. First I briefed the scholars and doctoral research students on my Mahabharat research. Then with my power point presentation I talked on the “Internal Beauty of Sanskrit”. The origin of Sanskrit is a very controversial subject. So I took this opportunity to discuss many Sanskrit related topics with Sanskrit Vyakarana scholar, Professor Dr. S. Korada.

On the second day in Hyderabad, I was invited by Dr. K. V. Krishna Murty of Institute of Scientific Research on Vedas (I-SERVE) to make presentation in his institute. I talked on both topics and told audience that I came there because I have new information. They appreciated my presentation. Finally Dr. Krishna Murty honored me by covering me with a special Vastram-Shaal in the Indian tradition of honoring Sanskrit scholars (Pundits). Having a Ph.D. degree in Material Science and Engineering, I never thought that I will receive such an honor reserved only for Sanskrit scholars in India. Tears came in my eyes.

Next I headed to attend the All India Oriental Conference in Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthaan University at Tirupati. In the conference I made presentation on “Mahabharat”. The session chairman Dr. Somashekhar remarked that he and all in audience heard new information on Mahabharat history never read or heard by them before. After taking the darshan of Shree Vyankateshvara and Devi Padmavati we returned to USA.

I intend to share the theses of both my papers with you soon. I will first share my work on the Internal Beauty of Sanskrit and after the second paper is published by BORI, I will share with you the contents of my research on Mahabharata, both in a summary fashion because both topics will be soon published in the form of two separate books.


N. R. Joshi.


Dr. N. R. Joshi holds a Ph. D. degree in Materials Science and Engineering from
The Johns Hopkins University of Baltimore, Maryland. He has 60 research publications. He is the Fellow of the American Society of Nondestructive Testing.
His research specialty is Ultrasonics and Acoustic Emissions. Ultrasonics is a science of high frequency sound while language and Music are composed in low frequency sound. His interest in acoustics of articulated sounds of Sanskrit attracted him towards research of the internal beauty of Sanskrit and towards research of the ancient Indian history related to Mahabharata.

Saturday, November 27, 2010



(Part III)
(For Part II see posting of 04 11 2009)


Dr. Seshachalam Dutta

Edited and partially modified by Shree Vinekar, M.D.

The institution of “caste” (more precisely “varNa”) is the most explosive subject of discussion for “Hindus”. Among the modern Hindu religious leaders, there had been profound ambiguity in expounding the caste system, often leading to defensive posture, especially when challenged by Western critics. I shall presently outline their dilemma in this article. The word “caste”, most people do
not realize is not indigenous to India, nor what it stands for. It is derived from the word “caste” in Portuguese. The medieval Portugal along with the rest of the Europe and the British Isles was practicing “serfdom” (a lesser form of slavery but discrimination of a large population indeed very much based on birth, to be considered a lower class, lower than the nobility and commoners) for several centuries, nearly two millennia, during this era.


Theological basis of Varna was presumably based on the Purusha Sukta of Rigveda . The “gods” sacrificed HiraNyagarbha in a Yajnya and the creation came forth from His body. (A nearly parallel version of the Big Bang theory of the origin of the Universe). The Purusha is described as “infinite, formless, without any differentiated qualities, ananta, niraakara, nirguNa” yet, anthropomorphizing “HIM”, the mantra 13 says

Braahmano yasya mukhaasit
Baahoo raajanyah kritaah
Ooroo tadasya yad vaishyaah
Paadaabhyaam shoodro ajaayata

Meaning, as popularly translated in concrete literal terms: Brahmins came from his face, raajaas (kshatriyaas) from his arms, Vaishyaas (merchants including other entrepreneurs) from his thighs and finally the servant class, Shudras, from his feet.

This Vedic authority was accepted unchallenged in concrete terms by orthodox Hindus throughout history. Brahmins pursued intellectual enterprise, Kshatriyas warfare and they became rulers; whereas Vaishyas agriculture and trade, and the rest were a servant class. While some argue this was a flexible system moving from one “caste” to another, there is absolutely no evidence for that conjecture either from tradition or from history with only a few exceptions. However, there was harmonious relation in this division almost until modern times. Occasional challenge to the Brahmin supremacy came from the next highest caste, the warriors. A Vaishya on the other hand cared less for Brahminical scriptures and was perfectly happy with his profits from trade. Shudras accepted their position and gradually acquired agriculture, thus the bulk of Indians even at present are farmers. Earlier we have analyzed how the caste sectarianism evolved into political struggle undermining secular democracy that has been tearing apart the Hindu Society (see of 04-24-2009. This article is considered the Part I of this topic). Here in “Part II” we shall examine the scriptural authority for the classification.

More precise definition of caste system took place in Hindu society by Sutra period, perfecting sociological structure dictated by codified laws. Sutra period was the time when orthodox Hinduism faced Buddhist challenge (600 BCE to 300 CE). Ancient Hindus were ruled by the laws dictated in later years by Smrutis, the social and religious laws. These codes changed with times and, therefore, there arose in time many Smrutis, like Parashara Smruti, Yajnavalkya Smruti, Devala Smruti and Manu Smruti. Whereas Smruti governed the contemporary, religious, political and personal life, whenever there was a conflict between Smruti and Shruti, the latter embodied in Vedas and Vedangas, prevailed (akin to constitutional law or preamble to the constitution in modern times) which was considered superior to legislative action, giving flexibility in application of the laws. Thus many practices in Parashara Smruti became outdated and abandoned as unfit for later ages (Kalivarjya).

In the matter of caste, its preservation was by strict rules for occupations or professions to be practiced and informally enforced by the laws for marriage. Although, eight forms of marriage were recognized, marriage was strictly restricted within the same caste. If ever transgression occurred, downward union of a man with lower caste woman was tolerated (Anuloma marriage) and man’s marriage with women higher up the gradient (Pratiloma marriage) was prohibited. Keechaka in Mahabharata was a case in point. He was described as the son of a Brahmin woman and Kshatriya father and hence was assigned the status of a Vaishya (3rd level). Vyasa and Vasishta were born of lower caste women, but their fathers were Brahmins and thus of anuloma descent.

Historically, there appears to be conflicts between top two higher castes. Legendary Parashurama enraged by the killing of his father, killed every Kshatriya king, conquering most part of the earth which he gave to Kashyapa prajapati, from whom the earthly princes re-acquired their kingdom and thus the kings of this earth derived their kingdoms by gift, and therefore, were forever obliged to heed the Brahmin and respect his counsel. However, Kshatriyas maintained near equality in spiritual learning and creativity. In this regard, Vivekananda makes a point that Upanishads were largely written by Kshatriyas whereas Bramhanikas were written by Bramhin Rishis.

Most egregious code written that brought infamy to Manusmriti is the role assigned to women and Shudras in Society as though they are compelled to live by this code. Manusmriti lV: 413 states Shudras should serve the Brahmin first and others, if only they do not find employment with a Brahmin. Serving a Brahmin with reverence and submissiveness elevates him to a higher level in the next life- not so when he serves others!

In the education of these classes, the distinction was maintained by Manu. A Brahmin boy had initiation into studies by upanayanam at age five, Kshatriya at age eleven and Vaishya at 12. There were slight variations in different traditions with the order being maintained. There was recognizable uniform; Brahmin carrying a danda to the length of the top of his head. Kshatriya to the level of forehead and Vaishya to the level of his nose. Brahmin was initiated with Gaayatri of Vishwamitra, Kshaktriya with Trishtub attributed to Hiranyastupa, Vaishya with Jagatti of Vamadeva. Their sacred threads were also different. Recognizable differences between these classes were maintained in the materials of girdle, upper cloth, lower cloth and their colors (mekhala, ajina and vasa). Caste was thus maintained by creating separate identity from the very childhood.

Professionally, Brahmins followed intellectual pursuits commanding highest respect, Kshatriyas were warriors and rulers, Vaishyas were in pursuit of trade and agriculture. Shudras were relegated to servant class who were forbidden in trading with the exception of selling only what they make, as for instance, a potter could sell pots and then only pots. They should serve the Brahmin first, and if employment was not available, he could serve Kshaktriya, and Vaishya last. Needless to say this division of labor was long gone as we know. The bulk of Indian population is farmers and not Vaishyas anymore. Nevertheless, the divisions of the castes persisted to modern times.

Even though Shudras were servant class, there was no slavery in ancient India in contrast to the ancient Western world. Sutrakaras were both liberal and conservative. The treatment of Shudras was more generous by Bhodayana than Aapastambhaa. Chariot makers (Rathikaras) were given Upanayana initiation by Bhodayana, considering them as the progeny of Vaishya and Shudra, whereas Aapastamhaa admitted no exceptions. Initiation into Vedic education was limited to the upper three castes, perhaps leading to wide spread illiteracy among Shudras which is the bulk of the population of India now. Treatment of Shudras, untouchables (chandalas) and women under Manu’s law had been the issue of contention for religious scholars and sociologists. So although much highly touted as an available option in ancient times to indivuduals of using the covenant of “guna-karma-vibhagashah” meaning one’s true nature and chosen occupation is to determine his/her caste, there is no historical evidence that such was a
prevalent practice.


The caste system of ancient times broke down with the invasion of northern tribes and internally by the social reform and challenges from Buddhists. Buddhist Aaramas and educational centers with the same curriculum as traditional brahminical disciplines with the exception of jyothishka (astrology), unlike single teacher gurukulas, transformed the landscape of India allowing wide spread education regardless of the caste. Over the centuries (mainly during the second millennium) there were many reformers who challenged caste system and finally, the only character left of caste was marriage within the same caste – endogamous marriage. Semblance of caste functions remained with few sections of Brahmins if not all, who were keeping alive the traditions of Vedic learning, observing ancient culture and following intellectual pursuits. Other segments of the Brahmin society, who were not engaged in administering sacraments, because of the head start in intellectual pursuits, became scholars both during Muslim and British rule and materially prospered relative to other communities. These scholars migrated to many parts of the world outside India as teachers. While Vaishyas mainly practiced trading, agriculture became the vocation of the rest of the masses. In some states, as in Andhra, Kshatriya community, if ever existed, nearly or totally disappeared. A few called Rajus are a small community which was brought from Bihar, along with others, by Shatavahanaas at the time of expansion of their empire.

Finally without any other meaning left in the domain of social order and occupational hierarchy, caste tribally divided India. Is there any justification in modern India for this system to exist? Answers to this question come in different shades. One superb achievement of caste system, however, was in segregating the incoming foreign elements into their own respective castes and to protect the purity of mainstream Hindu society from cultural and ethnic hybridization. This was before the paradigm for the departments of Immigration and Naturalization existed. India provided “amnesty” to many refugees and invaders and absorbed them in the society and enriched itself socioeconomically without disrupting its own social infrastructure. This was an ingenuous way of creating a melting pot, or rather a salad, that permitted diversity while maintaining separate identities but gave the larger cultural identity to all as “Hindu,” to both indigenous and immigrant populations.

We shall consider various defenses of the system by Hindu leaders. There are protagonists of the system who argue that there is “no such problem as caste”. It is the western educated mindset that discovers any such problem. The Hindu society is perfectly in harmony with the caste division as it only represents division of labor, and the institution is very healthy at best. Also, the inbreeding in each caste is a natural phenomenon, as lawyers’ sons tend to be lawyers and plumbers’ sons tend to be plumbers. There was no concerted effort to keep them segregated, they argue. Vivekananda gives an example, poor Brahmin is respected by rich Vaishya unlike in a Western class ridden society. While Vivekananda was not defending against Western criticism, he sees the problem differently. When a great person is elevated to higher caste by his qualities, the lower community is deprived of his/her presence among them. Conversely, the worst elements in the higher caste are dumped into lower castes resulting in further deterioration of their newly acquired caste, causing a ghettoing effect (italics mine). The mentally ill and incapacitated drifted downward in the lower socioeconomic classes. Division of labor argument is still most popular among the defenders of caste system. Swami Vivekananda when once asked about reforming caste system, himself a former Bramho, reportedly said that there were two sub-castes of Kayasthas in Bengal and asked them to try to unite them first! He wanted to stay out of the debate. In this respect, it is interesting to note that RSS which is open to all castes and is egalitarian in its philosophy has had no impact in reforming the caste system among the Swayamsevaks in Hindu community. Swayamsevaks are not able to reject their caste and most belong to one and privately carry the identity in their personal life, though not in the social context of the Sangha where there is ostensibly no discrimination on the basis of caste. This in itself is a significant progress which impressed Mahatma Gandhi and Jayaprakash Narayan when they visited RSS camps.

Presented with the problem of defending caste to the Western Audience, some leaders attempt to skirt it cleverly. Thus Prabhupada , the Founder of Hare Krishna Movement, translating Gita (first chapter) defines caste as family (Kula). Accepting this definition Lord Rama belongs to ”Raghukula” (Raghukulaanvaya Ratnadeepam) ( as if not a Kshatria!) Mahatma Gandhi totally avoided the question and concerned with the problem of untouchability, which was steadfastly defended by all Shankaracharyas until its defense was outlawed. Gandhi saw more of a political problem with untouchable leaders, Jogendranath Mandal and Ambedkar who began opposing Congress. On the other hand, Jawaharlal Nehru, a self-proclaimed agnostic and not much for the preservation of even an iota of Hindu identity, saw that without caste there was no structure for Hindu society and that dismantling caste would create chaos without replacing it with something for social identity, although he recognized the caste must go eventually. He had no idea what it should be that replaces it and what should be done to make it go away! He, however, vigorously defends the system against the Western critics saying that it is a natural institution not specifically designed to discriminate and enslave certain class. According to him, it is, in fact, one of the three pillars of Hindu society. Thus caste can be understood as grouping of people with common culture, subculture, language and dialects, food habits, customs, and even sampradayas meaning religious beliefs, like flowers with different fragrance and colors in a garden, if Hindu society is viewed as a garden.

Argument that there was a long standing harmony and acceptance of inferior social position by lower caste Hindus, which is characterized as division of labor is weak at the outset. Simply that there was no uprising by a permanent underclass does not justify the morality of the system. After all the slaves had full employment and many instances might have been treated generously by their masters, but that could not justify slavery (Dinesh D’Souza sees it differently). They, indeed, sang, danced, fell in love, raised families and accepted their condition as divine ordinance. This was true for the slaves, serfs, and all “lower” classes in the West as also in the East. The concept of social revolution and rebellion could not be viable with limited communication and unwieldy distances between scattered communities. . The communists and the Islamists also have failed in evolving classless societies although philosophically they and even the early Vedic philosophies and the Western democracies all recognized in principle that “all men were created equal.”


The protagonists of caste argue that the system as originally conceived was perfectly justified, but only that it became misconstrued. They tend to provide scriptural basis for it and argue caste or “varna” for a better word was a flexible system, which lost its vitality. However flexible, there are genetic differences among these groups, and therefore, the classification is still justified if only we can modify it to fit it in the modern times. This is an apologist view. There is a second group that denies that there is any such problem like caste problem, and therefore, the discussion is irrelevant. The third group, like Shankaracharyas, currently silenced by law and public opinion, advocate no change in the system, believing in the inerrancy of the scriptures. Various degrees of ambivalence can be found in the modern Hindu philosophers on this subject.

Oft quoted verse Chaturvarnam mayaa sristam gunakarma vibhagashah (Bhagavat Gita Ch 4: verse) says that Shri Krishna himself created four castes or Varnas differentiated by personal qualities and duties. This verse was commented on by various authors variously which illustrates the ambivalence on the subject of caste. Literally, the birth into a caste is ordained by “God” with no election possible for moving across the castes.

S. Radhakrishnan had varying positions on this subject at various times and places. He believed that the heredity determines the qualities of people and hence caste division and endogamy was justifiable. (Lectures at Oxford 1926). To illustrate this point he gives an example of one Civil War American soldier who, after wild romantic adventures, fell for an imbecile and married her. The subsequent six generations of this union yielded a total of 143 children all of whom were either, dullards or criminals like their mother. This soldier later married a good Quaker girl whose six generations produced professionals, judges, and governors. He was talking like an amateur geneticist long before this view of heredity was debated and trashed by professional geneticists. While commenting on the verse quoted above, he holds more benign opinion that castes of present day had nothing in common with the Varnas of antiquity, since Varnasankara took place during the times of Mahaabhaarata and the face of the Hindu society is completely changed in this domain. If we accept that view there is no point in discussing this subject further. The fear of Varnasankara was utmost in the mind of Arjuna, described in five verses of Gita in the first chapter. His fears came true and Varnaashrama indeed disappeared.

Radhakrishnan then reversed his position while commenting on the phrase swadharma nidhanam shreyam (Gita Ch. 18 verses 41 and 47). While all caste should be treated equally, he holds that, “equal opportunity” does not entail “identical opportunity”, a fine distinction indeed! In support of keeping the castes separate he quotes Herald Heard (Man and Master 1942) who admires Hindus for four fold division of society and deplores that “we pay more attention to breeding horses than men” and need no further scriptural support! By quoting a “eugenics” oriented racist view of a “white man,” S. Radhakrishnan identifies with him and
endorses it forgetting his “swadharma” !!! Radhakrishnan maintains that Hindus were liberal and flexible in matters of caste and gives the examples of Vasishta, a son of a low class woman and Vyasa a son of a fisher woman . But, their fathers were Brahmins; the concept ( erroneously) that genetic endowment comes from man who provides the “seed” and the woman the “soil” and nourishment is outdated and unscientific! This is pointed out to illustrate how even great thinkers
among the Hindus were bamboozled in dealing with the institution of caste and
forming clear cut ideas about retaining the system versus adopting a social reform
to abandon it.

Prabhupaada takes a very sanguine view of the phrase Guna and karma on the commentary on the verse of Gita (Ch. 4 vs 13) and says that a Brahmin who behaves like a Shudra is Shudra indeed, although born in a Brahmin family. He curiously does not deal with converse situations where Shudra has the qualities of a Brahmin. However, if we treat each other as equals it has no bearing on the social structure. On commenting on the phrase Swadharma nidhanam sheyam, he maintains that a merchant (Vaishya) can lie about his business, since it is his dharma! Lying is defended by the phrase sadoshamapi (meaning even though it is wrongful). Although Prabhupaada may be referring to the situational ethics of concealing the cost and the profit margin, I wonder whether this may also apply to tax evasion. Here again one sees another great thinker or commentator getting stumped on these complex issues of caste and swadharma.

On this subject of swadharma to be followed despite imperfections, Aurobindo takes the position that all should spiritually advance to the level of a Brahmin and thus function to elevate themselves. The problem with this interpretation is that, if perfection is thus achieved, the phrase sadoshamapi (despite imperfections) in the verse loses its significance. This would not shed any light on the social organization of caste again. In modern language this truly endorses being true to one’s nature and trying to be as authentic as one can be rather than carry affectations and deceptive fake façades. “Be real!!” However, great thinker after thinker, great interpreter after interpreter of Hinduism seems to find this area of Hinduism quite slippery and seems to slide and lose his/her balance.

People are born in specific castes ordained by god is evident in Gita where Vaishyas and Shudras (and women) have lower birth — papayonah (Gita Ch. 9-32), “the worst of the humanity are thrown into inferior wombs by God (Ch. 16: 19 and 20).” The literal translation would mean the Shudras and women are born from a sinful (if papa is translated as sin) vaginal birth. This view is further supported by Ithaca’s and Purina’s. For instance, Yudhisthira in answer to one of the questions of Nahusha, who was in the form of a snake and who bound and immobilized his brothers, says a good Shudra can only become Sat-Shudra not a Brahmin, because that would upset the social organization (Mahabharata Adiparva).

There is a well known story of Satyakama Jabala in Chandogyopanishad. Jabala goes to his teacher Gautama and reveals what his mother told him about his birth that she served many men in her life and that she would not know to whom he was born. The teacher impressed with his truthfulness and honesty admits him as a student. Shankara commenting on this episode insists that, certainly, he should be of Brahmin descent and goes one step further by commenting that his mother in her devotion to serving her master forgot to ask him of his caste, but he was indeed a Brahmin! His hypothesis that qualities of character are determined at birth (and are genetically determined and honesty is limited genetically to the Brahmin caste is a preposterous position taken by a Hindu religious leader) as those of Satyakama is consistent with the overall message of Chandogyopanishad. Most modern educated individuals will recognize that Shankaracharya was hard pressed and was only human to use extreme rationalization full of fallacies.

It is the opinion of this author that the irrationalities from modern scientific and genetics viewpoint in the position adopted by the Hindu scriptures are clear. We shall accept or reject the validity and necessity for the caste system on its own merit and any other approach defending it is disingenuous or an apology for an indefensible position.

What does future hold for the traditional caste? With greater social mobility, economic development and emigration to the West the Hindu society will change in the coming years despite the resistance from the reactionary ruling political and feudal forces. This is the subject of hope for the third part of this article.


Stay tuned on for Part IV