PAKISTAN KHATUMSTAN, WHAT NEXT?

PAKISTAN KHATUMSTAN, WHAT NEXT?
http://www.india-forum.com/essay/12667/1/PAKISTAN-KHATUMSTAN,-WHAT-NEXT

By Shree Vinekar & Seshachalam Dutta

Published 01/06/2008 Indian Politics

This is a sequel to “Terrorism: An Indian Perspective” originally published on www.swaveda.com and republished on www.india-forum.comand Demo-narchy Of Democratic Republic of India - II

After condemning the brutal assassination of Benazir Bhutto, and with all due sympathies to late Benazir Bhutto’s family, it is imperative to examine the precedence being set by her in the South Asian Subcontinent to perpetuate dynasties within democracies to control the destiny of the country and its political parties from the grave as if these are personal estates that can be bequeathed in one's last will. If political leaders of the country start bequeathing their personal estates through their last will, there would be no questions asked, although any last will could be legally challenged by legitimate interests. If Kings and Queens in the 21st Century appoint their heirs to the throne that may be quite understandable.There is really no custom or convention in the constitutional law or in the political parties for such a phenomenon. Nepotism during the lifetime of the political leaders is reluctantly accepted by their followers. Bilawal Bhutto, Rahul Gandhi and Pankaj Singh each may be viewed as the heir apparent for their respective party leadership positions in remote future. The difference is Bilawal, as precocious as he is, is appointed as per the last will the chairman of the party in absentia with proxy given to his father Assif Ali Zardari now newly renamed “Bhutto Zardari.”Bilawal’s lofty statements regarding his faith in democracy and avenging his mother’s assassination through democracy are normal expressions of a grieving and mourning teenager but alas he does not see how democracy is highjacked in his political party. Of course, Pakistan has never been a true democracy and, at the very least, is more immature for a democracy than India. What is interesting though is that the population in India and Pakistan seems to take such developments in their political history in stride without any protestation.There are ample number of responsible and mature citizens in both countries that not only look askance but justify these practices as necessary given the political immaturity of the population. There are many factors that play a part in such events and this essay will examine the historical, cultural, and other roots of such political immaturity both in Pakistan and India leading to a mindset that prefers “Demonarchy” in the South Asian or Indian Subcontinent. Necessarily the focus will not be exclusively on Pakistan. A non-compartmentalized, compare and contrast, approach will be used to illustrate the phenomena.Some thoughts on Benazir Bhutto’s assassination from an Indian perspective may be in order prior to delving into the reasons for and consequences of “Demonarchies” in South Asian Subcontinent.It appears that Benazir Bhutto believed in a form of Islam that does not exist. For example, she believed in a myth that assassination of a woman was unthinkable in Islam. After her reentry into Pakistan even after the attack by suicide bombers who killed 140 individuals she courageously left her position in house arrest admonishing the Muslims approaching her that she was a woman and not to be harmed by a good Muslim. She forgot the pointblank shootings in the head of women by Taliban captured on the video.She had unwittingly supported Taliban as well as the Saudis among whom the Wahabis routinely behead women. One has to wonder how she developed such conviction of her invulnerability and her faith in chivalrous Muslims and especially in the harmlessness of terrorist Islamists.Surely she was aware of the risks and had a premonition that she could fall victim to terrorists and so wrote her last will two days before her assassination. It indicates that her convictions regarding no fellow Muslim harming her because of her status as a woman and as a beloved political leader may have been a “denial” of Islam approving homicidal violence against women. She needed such denial, psychologically, and it may have had its unconscious roots in her exposure to Hindu culture. Conversely, this idea of “Islam” as stated in the previous statement does not represent, necessarily, the true spiritual philosophy of Islam but, rather, the skewed and grey-lined idea of primitive fundamentalist Islam which incorporates “laws” punishable by inhumane force.CULTURAL AFFINITY OF INDIA AND PAKISTAN This brings us to examine closely the cultural affinity the Pakistani Muslims have with Indian Muslims and Hindu culture rather than the Arabic ethos as erroneously some Muslims would like to believe. Even among the converted Indian Muslims their original caste, skin color, and “khaan-daan” is a major consideration in matrimonial arrangements. They also seem to marry with Muslims speaking the same local language rather than one who speaks only Urdu. Their apparel and food habits and culture are closer to the culture of their domicile state or region. They have friendly relationship with their non-Muslim neighbors and generally they fit in very well in the cosmopolitan cities in India and generally all over India amongst Hindus unless instigated by politicians or terrorist fundamentalist Mullahs.This fact is not known to many non-Indians and especially the Muslims residing in foreign countries who do not seem to know that India has the second largest Muslim population after Indonesia. That is not to deny that many would like to imitate their Arabian Islamic brethren and assume that their original culture was Arabic because their religion took birth in Arabia and/or they were indoctrinated to do so. In actuality most Indian and Pakistani Muslims do not have a biologically speaking Arabic or Middle Eastern racial identity.They are all typically classified as belonging to an “East Indian” race along with the Hindus in India.“Yad hai jub utara caravan hamara – Sare Jahanse Accha Hindoasatan Hamara” (Do you remember our caravan coming down here? Our Hindustan is better than the entire world”) are the words of Iqbal, himself a grandson of a Kashmiri Brahmin, reminding the Pakistani and Indian Muslims that they are the descendents of the invaders who entered India on caravans. Such cultural mis-education is deeply rooted in the Pakistani and Indian Muslim minds. For example Pakistan took pride in naming its missile after an invader Ghori but no self respecting Indian will name an Indian missile Alexander although there may be residual Greek “blood” in some Indians.This has presented a confusion of identity for the Muslims in India and in addition created a serious conflict of loyalty with half their heart pulled to Arabia though those who tried to live in middle East have sadly discovered that their social status in those countries is not elevated simply by virtue of their religion and that the status of Indian or Pakistani Muslims is not equal to that of the Middle Eastern Muslims in the Middle East.Benazir had the same psychological need to identify with her Western Muslim neighbors rather than accept her cultural roots as Indian Sindhi. Such sympathetic identification may also be a reason for her deluding herself with denial of inhumanities of the Middle Eastern and Afghan fundamental Islam and the reason for her belief in a more humane Islam surrounding her than that was in actuality. Otherwise she would have insisted on stronger security from the government although it can now be questioned whether such was lacking by design.Muslims of Indian Subcontinent have no distinct linguistic identityMost Pakistani and some Indian Muslims consider Urdu as their mother tongue instead of Arabic. Urdu is a language born in India with Hindi grammar and structure with Parsee and some Arabic words interspersed. Many Urdu scholars and writers are Hindu, for example, Munshi Premchand. Former Prime Minister of India Atal Bihari Vajpayee is one such person who is proficient in Urdu and had excellent rapport established with General Parvez Musharraf. Neither Musharraf nor Vajpayee considered India or Pakistan as Banana Republics to allow foreign elements to enter freely to investigate internal matters.What is amazing in the life and death of this leader, Benazir, is the generic problem of identity incidental to separation and partition from India that is the problem of Pakistan. This problem is in the psychological need to deny that the population of Pakistan has a Hindu soul with all its faults as illustrated below with many examples. The Pakistanis are cut out of the same cloth as the Indian Muslims and even the Hindus of India.The evidence for this statement is the position of veneration enjoyed by Benazir Bhutto herself. It is only in India where the basic tenet of the society is that “wherever the women are venerated is where even the Gods choose to live.” Where else in the Muslim world other than in the Indian Subcontinent a Muslim woman can be a leader at the helm of a nation? This is true only for Bangladesh once and twice in Pakistan. The latter is still in its identity crisis trying to discover its soul. In Bangladesh there is no question the identity is easy for an average citizen as there is close identification with the Bengali language, literature and culture.One must admit that Pakistan may have a different religion but not a different national identity as Allama Iqbal conceived. Even Iqbal may not have for psychological and political reasons recognized or accepted that the heart of Hindu soul throbs in all people of the Indian subcontinent. This, of course, cannot be fathomed by Sonia Gandhi, an Italian with legacy of notorious mafia connections and legacy of Nero and most cruel fascist like Mussolini besides her Catholic lineage and limited stay in India during her formative years. She was so quick to accuse the son of the soil, Narendra Modi, of being a “Mout ka saudagar.” It is besides the point that she was promptly reprimanded by the Indian Elections Commission for this expression. Such irresponsible language is inflammatory and adds fuel to fire and the damage done by this distortion may yet to take shape.Demonization of political opponents presents them as enemies rather than just rivals. The Congress party may have to teach her some manners instead of writing her Hindi speeches in Roman script and setting her up as an empty headed reader. If they do, they may yet win next time even in Gujarat!! Congress when in power has the responsibility to put a stop to creation of a hostile atmosphere. There have been riots even in the times of Jawaharlal Nehru and Rajiv Gandhi but they were not blamed then by their political opponents as ‘Moutke Saudagars.” For example 3000 Sikhs were killed in the riots after Indira’s assassination.The question Sonia and Rahul should have asked in Gujrat was how come the Muslims could not live peacefully and dare to initiate violence against innocent Hindus rather than create a demon out of Modi for responding with bringing the army in to quell the riots on March 1st after they broke out on or around February 28th, 2002, (Godhra train burning of February 27th by terrorists caused these riots) distorted much later by the media who forgot February had only 28 days and not 31 when they reported that Modi waited for 3 days before responding responsibly. It does not behoove well for responsible national leaders and the so called secular media to have such protracted falsifying histrionics over spurious issues that were not any different than with other riots in other eras when the Nehru dynasty was in power; it does not accomplish any good purpose besides further instigating psychotic and sociopathic Islamic terrorists.As stated in the article on “Terrorism,” Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are two internationally recognized major instigators and state supporters of international terrorism, yet strangely they are the trusted allies of the U.S. The recent political events in Pakistan leading to a deplorable and deteriorating tragic condition with increasing focus on virulent terrorism backfiring on their own leaders needed a word to capture this state of affairs. Sadly in the interest of brevity the authors regrettably choose to do so by using the word “Khatumstan.” The British and U.S. encouragement for poor (rich) Benazir Bhutto to return to her beloved Pakistan turned out to be her last journey to her “Khatumstan.” “Khatum” is a word in Urdu and Hindi that means “end” or “finish.” These encouraging foreign political elements did not ensure her safety. The chaos generated after her death, it is feared, may lead to the end of Pakistan at least as we know it today. If that happens, it may also be called “Khatumstan.” The serious thesis of this article is that both India (Hindustan) and Pakistan have a potential to become “Khatumstans” if the destructive political events are not properly grasped by the leadership of both countries. The shape of both these countries could change if the current fragmenting psychosis is not precipitously diagnosed and treated. There is already great activism by expatriate Pakistani citizens mostly residing in U.K. to begin movement to divide Pakistan into many different countries. See Divide Pakistan to Eliminate Terrorism - Syed Jamaluddin http://www.blogger.com/www.dividepakistan.blogspot.com“US: CNN airs mysterious 'Divide Pakistan' advertisementsUK-based author buys spots on news network to advertise bookTimes of IndiaSunday, March 11, 2007By Chidanand Rajghatta posting from Washington”Courtesy “Times of India”These activists were hoping that Benazir Bhutto would win the elections and support their cause of dividing the country. They were surely dreaming. However, if she lost the elections, they proposed she should become the President of newly created country, Sindhudesh (a new name for Sindh province of Pakistan). All this may be mere hype to sell a book for profits through Amazon.com, it is postulated.On the other hand, there may be a hand of foreign governments in promoting such exorbitantly expensive propaganda. If so, this leads us to the Part II of our article, Demonarchy in Democratic India-2. There are many American academicians who are predicting that India too will be divided into many countries. Then with such Balkanization as was the fate of Yugoslavia, it will be a Federation of Pakistani states and Federation of Indian states that will emerge in the South Asian subcontinent.There are many lessons to be learned from the recent events in Pakistan for India. Given the similarity of psychological gestalt of Indian and Pakistani population, regardless of religion, the fragmentation could easily occur if not guarded against with some form of unifying identity which poets like Iqbal tried to instill but may have failed in doing so. Similarly in India there has been any number of visionaries who have tried to unite Hindus or notably also Mahatma Gandhi who tried to unite the entire population both Hindus and Muslims on the basis of a common racial identity and have not succeeded spectacularly. Therefore, both countries are easy prey to the cunning political or even religious imperialistic interests wielding divide and rule tactics. Alas, both countries have failed to recognize who their true friends and foes are and have been taken on a ride for nearly a century now focusing their animosities on each other draining their economies to defend against each other while some other parties are constantly amused and profiting.WHAT CAN WE LEARN?First, dynasties die hard even in a democracy. Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi representing UPA and Congress can be read like a book by the majority of Gujaratis and recognized as fake and lacking in substance. Their sympathies were clearly for the terrorists as expressed by their reluctance to support the Supreme Court decision vigorously supported by Narendra Modi. Name calling a law abiding Chief Minister of Gujrat, a “soudagar of mout” or “merchant of death” for insisting that law of the land be followed especially after the heart of India was systematically attacked by the brutal terrorist was quite absurd. It exposed their lack of loyalty to the victims of terrorism. Such tactics of vote bank placation for solicitation of political favors are quite transparent besides subtly encouraging terrorists against those who oppose them.Presuming that their dismal defeat in Gujarat is a preview of their fate in the ensuing elections, one can envision the replication of what happened in Gujrat in almost all other states except West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala. In the event such wishful thinking does not actualize, one needs to envision future consolidation of dynastic rule in the Indian Republic. If that happens, the Pakistan and Saudi Arabia supported terrorism is likely to show an upheaval. The rest of India will need to recognize that to maintain its present economic engine in the same current momentum terrorism needs to be totally eliminated from India. That means there is no room for sympathizers of terrorists in the Indian politics.Naturally, it is time that UPA and Congress seek an unceremonious exit from the Indian Political scene in all states. Otherwise under the fake banner of “Secularism” these parties will continue to support minorities defending minority terrorism rather than aligning with the mature, modern, progressive peace loving and anti-terrorist Muslims and other minorities that will pledge allegiance with India that is Bharat.They are the “soudagars of fake secularism” using the word “secularism” as a marketable shield against a demonized “communalism.” In so doing they will blatantly and subtly support terrorism, cause divisiveness, and unrest in the population at large. What they forget is that even what they call communalism is a phenomenon that springs in reaction to age old endemic terrorism.The goal of uniting Hindus should not be any less noble than ecumenical movement among the Christians. It would be absurd to call ecumenical efforts communalism. The dynasty survives in India using such illogical psychological warfare with people, constantly profiting from dividing the society rather than trying to unite it, because it buys the vote bank.Secondly, India is like Pakistan divided by different languages and cultural identities and more so. Currently, the secular Indian identity is not the mode for the majority. Ideally, the standard of secular humanistic nationalism dreamed by developed countries is one divorced from race, religion, language, caste and class, and culture. Such nationalism needs to be the binding force for uniting the entire population of India. Let us face it; India is far from reaching this stage. Pakistan too has the same problem. So long as there is no oath of allegiance for every citizen to be loyal to his or her country, the question of secular national identity becomes moot. There is reluctance among Indians to accept the basic identity of Hinduness and Hindu culture as what is uniting India.The Bollywood movies and songs smuggling in Hindi language through the movies in many states might lead to a common culture or pop-culture, but that will not arouse the national sentiments in the people to give a unity of spirit. Just on the side, the most cordial relationship between Muslims and Hindus in the Bollywood Film Industry since 1896 is quite remarkable and attests to their humane and human friendship. Just as even in a mature democracy like U.S. politicians routinely respect the “faith” of their constituency and openly align with it in a generic fashion, the politicians in India will need to use this cultural identity to establish rapport with their constituency which forms the majority. Building constituency for political leaders is a major challenge. After the end of the Independence movement and unity against the British, the Indian National Congress has not found any burning overriding principles or issues to develop and foster a national identity. There is no charismatic visionary leader swaying Indian population at large with issues like the social reforms, infrastructure development, national security, anti-terrorism, uniform sustained economic growth and development, elimination of poverty and corruption, uplifting of the disadvantaged, uniform civil code, better government, competing with China in manufacturing, maintaining sustained double digit economic growth, improved healthcare, sound foreign policy, entry into UN security Council, strategies to prevent fragmentation of the country, better educational opportunity for the masses and other widely appealing agendas in a manifesto that a common man on the street can identify with, speaking his/her language. Such talents could develop a constituency in a secular society. Rahul does not seem to have a potential to foot this bill.In the absence of such secular National leadership, with hypnotizing but sincere appeal to all Indians, the Hindu cultural identity or identification with underprivileged masses, chosen by Mayavathi, as a medium to build a national constituency become viable alternatives. It is never to be anti-national and divisive in nature, in fact, always it is more nationalistic as well as hopefully all inclusive. To accuse such identity as “communal” and those adhering to such identity “saudagars of Dharma” in a pejorative manner is unrealistic. The Majority will wise up to it.Having a strong identification with the majority is not to be looked down upon. The corrupt thinking that such identification only means that the politician will treat all minorities as second class citizens comes from a paranoia based upon the experiences with the Muslim regimes of the past and is also a vestige of the Colonial era. It is now sixty years since independence. It is high time that Indian people not remain paranoid and brain washed with Jawaharlal Nehru’s antiquated world view about such matters, although it has been swallowed lock, stock, and barrel by the so-called secular English media in India.If strong efforts are not made by the majority across the length and breadth of India to unite, we can speculate that it will not be too long before we see foreign activism, interference, and financing to fragment India just like the current thrust in fragmenting Pakistan. The current exploitation of a positive transference to the name Nehru and Gandhi is not sufficient to produce a strong nationalistic unifying power like Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Rahul is not competent and cannot hold a candle to Jawaharlal Nehru or Indira Gandhi, leave alone Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel. Weak demonarchs like Sonia and Rahul will not only stymie and stifle even more talented and competent Congress politicians from growth in their popularity within and outside the Congress Party but will also create increasingly weak center that is difficult for people of India to identify with besides silly preference for dynasty rewarding incompetence at the helm of the nation.That will lead to more powerful autonomous states like Gujrat and Tamilnadu, etc. which might seek separation from the Center especially if instigated by foreign powers. This is only a scenario and not the authors’ reading of the character of these states. The cursory look at the World history should show that the British and other Colonial European powers are adept at surreptitiously fueling violence between different “groups” and profiting by selling arms to both sides and later patronizingly come back with a price to establish peace in the same region they had ignited. India and Pakistan have been made fools once in the Kashmir conflict but are targets for many such future conflicts.It can be easily surmised that Baluchistan, Sindh, Pakhtoon, etc., are easy future targets like Nagaland, Arunachal Pradesh, and may be even states much closer to Delhi. These elements have been well suppressed by the military rule in Pakistan but will be difficult to handle if flare up in India. It is crucial therefore that Narendra Modi be recognized as being on target for providing a solution for strong India relying on the National Hindu Unity in the interest of national security and national integrity.The usual mistake is to misinterpret that Hindus if united are only doing so to bully or fight the minorities. There is no historical basis for such paranoia.Jawaharlal Nehru was quite astute in recognizing that the Hindu culture was the uniting force for the Indian people as he clearly expressed it in his book “Discovery of India” as “Unity in Diversity,” but his political acumen recognized that political leaders of the Majority will be his strong political rivals and he consciously or unconsciously became averse to them and implemented a divide and rule politics which he had learned so well from the British for political survival. It is conceivable though that if 800 million Hindus unite and organize themselves they may be a formidable force and not to be bullied with irrationalities as is the current plight of the non-united Hindus. Hindus will need to have a social reform to eliminate social evils in their own society and likewise to not allow other primitive people impose their primitive culture and laws upon the women and children of India no matter what religion they belong to.Freedom to practice ones religion to attain spiritual peace is not to be construed as freedom to encroach upon other peoples’ rights, for example, by polluting the atmosphere with high decibel sounds all hours of the day and night even against the ordinances of the City (and the police) under the name of practice of religion. Such irrationalities will need to be curbed by placing pressure by the majority. Nonviolent persuasion will be the best policy and non-corrupt enforced law and order among the majority and minority will be the next avenue. Modi will be able to demonstrate it in his state of Gujrat. All citizens will need to be educated to carry their civic responsibility.Third, although there is no central military rule in India the accusation that the Indian government is a Brahmin-Bania (Bumman-Bania) majority venture is like Punjabi Muslims being in control of Pakistan, its politics, economics, business, real estate, and military. Similar perception about India will be deleterious, if it persists sixty years after the independence, although the highly educated barristers and other politicians who led the freedom movement and inherited the political power in India were from the privileged classes.The solution to this problem is to make education available to all Indians and especially to the underprivileged and encourage higher education in all fields for the underprivileged lower socioeconomic classes regardless of caste or OBC (“Other Backward Classes”) status. This thrust will eventually encourage young men and women from all classes and castes, minority and majority communities, to enter politics to partake in the governance of the country. If this is not done rapidly the divisive elements will replicate what is happening in Pakistan in India.The question, “What next,” applies to the fate of both countries that have same flaws in their mindsets at a deeper level. India has no room to be complacent while Pakistan is rapidly disintegrating. India too could be on the verge of similar problems because of the weak dynasty trying to hold the fort at the center. It cannot be denied that neither Sonia nor Rahul have the command over the Indian public nor the organizational skills like those demonstrated by Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel.Both countries, India and Pakistan, though not equal, are beset by the same faults. One of them is the irresistible loyalty to dynasties running contrary to democratic traditions, yet trying to fashion a Western type of democracy. This situation is fertile for foreign interference and control to use the puppet masters of the state to achieve the goals of other imperialistic countries. That may be what that threatened the insecure elements in Pakistan that may have sensed foreign hand in Benazir Bhutto’s return. Bilawal and his deputed acting chairman of the party, his father, may also be vulnerable to similar paranoid reactions and perceptions when the time comes for them to assume the helm of the country.How can there be democracy where there is no democracy internally in the political parties partaking in the democracy? Besides, the morality and ethics, if not the legality, of such practices goes unquestioned. Nineteen year old son not even eligible for party membership is bequeathed the throne of the party with his father as his acting deputy. (Incidentally, Bilawal’s father was once nicknamed Mr. 10% Zardari for his corruption.) This resembles Akbar’s ascension to throne at age of 13 when the concept of democracy did not exist, but Zardari is no non-corrupt Birbal known for his genius. Bairon Khan was the guardian of Akbar who got rid of him in 4 years choosing Birbal as his friend, guide, and philosopher.With all of her Oxford education Benazir Bhutto observed the tradition of the subcontinent, married one approved or chosen by her mother, unlike Rajiv Gandhi; she behaved like the Moghul kings of the past in naming her heir to the throne. She was sadly assassinated without provocation while Rajiv was a victim of his own military misadventure in Sri Lanka, sending Indian army to kill his fellow Indians settled there.In the unlikely event of his being elected, will Bilawal bring Western style of “secular” peaceful democracy (secular may be a misnomer for a theocracy which Pakistan truly is) or will he relapse into the nativity on his return is the question, -- as this happens with so many Western educated leaders who on their return to their homelands have half forgotten the values they learned, if they learned them at all at Oxford, Cambridge, or Harvard.The education of children of political leaders of developing countries in these Universities is a sham unless they are inherently brilliant like Jawaharlal Nehru or King Husain of Jordan. Their social promotion is guaranteed and looked askance by faculty for these independently wealthy students who are the political pawns of the future who are sure to return to their countries of origin to assume power and present no threat to employment market, local workers, or professionals. Their Oxford, Cambridge or Harvard qualifications are more often ornamental and are never verified by local employment experts in human resources department as is the sole privilege of the commoners and not of the “royalty” in demonarchies!!These monarchs in democracy do not have to go through background check to have access to higher than top security issues or documents, with or without official position in the government. They can be the easy targets for foreign espionage and control, so they can maintain stability in the region by catering to their masters. Even though accused of mega corruptions they can repeatedly assume power defying the public interest using their political power and positions to quash the investigative or judicial processes.Is weakened Pakistan a favorable situation for India? No, if it means upper hand for the primitive Islamists in Pakistan including their terrorist training grounds. Promoting the think tanks to formulate the impact of fragmented Pakistan or some form weakened Pakistan, if not “Khatumstan,” on the west of India is an urgent necessity.The progressive, moderate, and educated Muslims who love democracy in India and who love India and have been enjoying peaceful pursuit of their businesses and careers need to join these think tanks and help Hindus and other Indians understand that there are truly peace loving friendly civic minded Muslims in India that want a strong India devoid of terrorist threats, and they too desire peaceful and harmonious society. They, too, are against Islamic terrorism just like Benazir Bhutto was during her lifetime. They need to be willing to accept the just and judicial consequences proffered to identified terrorists and any actions taken to redress the past injustices of imperialistic terrorism perpetrated upon the Hindu majority in India.The economic growth of India is in the ultimate interest of all including minorities choosing to live in India, and also beneficial for Pakistan and Bangladesh. Hindu majority has been uniquely hospitable to all religions historically for 2000 years and will continue to be hospitable if not aggressed upon in the democratic Republic of India. There have been millions of Gandhis among the Indian Hindus in 5000 years who espoused Ahinsa (Non-violence). Mahatma Gandhi was a product of this culture. Fighting the majority and creating disturbances of peace is hardly the way to go. If this is not recognized and peaceful coexistence is not urgently implemented, the Pakistan Khatumstan history could repeat in India within a matter of few years. India probably has a special obligation to help stabilize Pakistan, if called upon, to ensure anti-terrorism oriented stable government in Pakistan.There is all the more need now to have friendly relationship with Pakistan as initiated by Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Demonarchy thrives on divisiveness. The dynasty and demonarchy that engages in fragmenting Indian society and promulgating divisive policies must be seen as doomed in India, if India is to progress in the 21st Century. The Muslims and Hindus in India need to come together and not be further divided by vote-seeking politicians, for ultimate economic prosperity of the sub-continent through practice of mature democracy. For this to occur, “de-monarchization” needs to begin promptly (see previous articles for definitions) in India and hopefully in Pakistan too to prevent demonarchization of democracy. The people of both countries need to first become keenly aware of these phenomena to begin this process.

All articles and messages made available as part of this discussion group (including any bulletin boards and chat rooms) and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of sookta-sumana.blogspot.com The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this Sookta-Sumana web site does not mean that Sookta-Sumana has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy.

INDIAN SECULARISM: a Sham (Part II)

INDIAN SECULARISM: a Sham
(Caste-ism Revisited)

Part II

Seshachalam Dutta, Ph.D.

Edited and modified by Shree Vinekar

ARE THERE SOLUTIONS FOR CASTE BASED INEQUALITIES?

IS CASTE BASED AFFIRMATIVE ACTION A SOLUTION TO CASTE-ISM?

An attempt is made to answer these questions in this article. It should be understood that this article takes a cross sectional view of the current social, economic, and political activities as they impact the caste based structure of the Hindu society in particular and other Indians in general. While taking a bird's eye view of caste like groupings in other religious groups in India that are also not free from similar stratification, the author recognizes that the caste mentality is ubiquitous in India regardless of the religious divides. After all the "other groups," though they may delude themselves into thinking that they have originated from other biological and cultural lineage, have inescapable hold on them of the deep rooted psychology of their parent society and its customs and social practices. Caste-ism dies hard in India and certainly exists "un-named and poorly identified" in all other societies of the world.

CASTE BASED RESERVATIONS:

How did we get to this stage? Are we all Indians not simply a conglomerate of the castes as reflected in The British India Government published census in 1931, listing all the castes in India? According to that census, among Hindus, forward classes constituted about 17% and the Scheduled castes (SC) (Dalits) 16% and Scheduled tribes (ST) about 7% and there were other forward classes mostly landed gentry and nearly 3000 backward classes constituting the rest. Initially the fight for power and privilege was limited to the feudal forward classes and Brahmins in South India. The scheduled classes were economically weak, culturally deprived, and had no voice, despite active communist movement in India. The leadership was in the hands of forward classes. Before the British census (and even long after) the caste was a self certification and it continues to be one. Each group was proud of their heritage and had no reason to cross into another group even though there was no administrative or religious sanction against such miscegenation. In fact, most educated people from the families of backward classes as they acquired higher education and advanced, abandoned their backward caste title -and rightly so- adopted more forward class titles. The present reservation policy curiously tends to reverse this course. It is illegal to call a person from cobbler community a Chamar, as decided by the Supreme Court, but ironically one has to identity oneself a Chamar to get the benefit of reservation.

A serious analysis of caste problems in India was highlighted by Justice Markandey Katju of Supreme Court of India. Writing in Hindu, he believes, Caste is disappearing with education and urbanization of Indian youth, although, the facts presented by him do not justify his honest and heartfelt hope. He cites, in the article, the increase of caste consideration in vote bank politics, after all blood is thicker than all else –not to mention ideology. Voting in Bar Associations India, according to Katju, is influenced by caste; he could not mention about Bench, after all it is not far from bar. The media have tried to explode this myth that caste determines the voter's choice on the national scene. However, what is evident in the professional organizations is obvious, and therefore, one can extrapolate that when the caste is known either by the "name" of the candidate or by the selection process of the candidates, voting along the caste lines is naturally the course for the par.

We may add to this list certain academic Departments in Andhra, for instance, which were either completely or predominantly manned by the Brahmins (Mathematics and Physics). Some were predominantly Non-Brahmin (Geology, zoology]. In Tamilnadu Vivekananda College supported by Ramakrishna Mission has been accused of being predominantly Brahmin, whereas Patchiappa college was predominantly Non-Brahmin.

Many groups are demanding reclassification as backward classes for getting reservations and at times submit fake certificates. Katju traces the origin of various castes becoming land owners or farmers having lost their professions with the advent of British Colonialism. British are blamed for concretizing the caste; the present Governments of India have further institutionalized it by the reservation system which no longer allows movement from one caste to another, for in doing so would result in loss of Reservation privileges.

Justice Katju’s optimism that education and urbanization will eliminate caste is unfortunately unfounded. Education and even immigration to the West would not eliminate caste. Prime examples are immigrants from Andhra to the U.S.A. Most of the Immigrants from Andhra came to the U.S in early 1960's and 70's. Most of them, as is true with feudal classes, subscribe to Congress Ideology, Nehruvism, and phony "socialism" and so called "secularism" in their expressed beliefs, but are in reality unashamedly cast communal.

Early immigrants to U.S from Andhra were predominantly from two feudal communities, Reddys and Kamma Naidus, since they had the means and, most importantly, political influence to get into much coveted professional education like Medicine and Engineering before the days of Caste based reservations. They formed Telugu Association called TANA in 1960s dominated by Kamma Naidus. A few years later the two Castes fell out with each other and the Reddys formed a rival organization, ATA dominated by the Reddys. To preserve the caste, they had set up matrimonial bureaus for arranged marriages, annual youth retreats to facilitate matchmaking and courting or selection of partners from the same castes and a journal of each group. Despite these exertions, the practice of endogamy within the caste fell apart for true reasons. For one, the caste as tribal concept is so fragile, devoid of any substance, and could not withstand the dynamism of Western culture. The first generations found it too restrictive, depriving the wider choice of a mate. And secondly, Indians for the most part are color conscious preferring light skinned partners and naturally the lightest are the White people. The story of Indian marrying a black as in Mississippi Masala is only a fiction. While Blacks keep their culture with the slogan of black pride “Black is beautiful,” there is no such idea as “Brown is beautiful” among the Indians. These organizations could not think in terms of broader based religion (Dharma) or culture, for they are mostly politically affiliated with Indian Congress and its false ideology and indoctrination of so called secularism and hence they fought vehemently movements like VHP and other Hindu Nationalist organizations, which were trying to broaden the base of Hindu community. Some of them who are interested in Hinduism, are supporters of temples which are unattractively orthodox, at times cult like, resistant to reform and fail to interest young people. Thus the caste system of immigrants will predictably perish over a time, accompanied by the disintegration of their cultural identity as Hindus. Extensive acculturation of first generation Hindus has already occurred.

ESCAPE OF CASTEI-SM BY CONVERSION:

Does conversion to Christianity help? No!

History tells us that religious conversion does not offer protection from discrimination as converted Jews even after three generations were massacred by Nazis. The plight of the African Americans or the Native Americans converted to Christianity did not improve by virtue of their conversion alone.

Andhra had three converted Christian Chief Ministers, but they all carried the title of Reddy, a predominant social class title. They would not abandon the caste title or intermarry or carry their Christian first names. More than 70% of the Christians are converted from Dalits and mostly from former untouchable classes. After 60 years of preferential treatment through reservation in education and Government employment their lot did not significantly improve. The higher caste converts would still discriminate against them and there is no homogeneity in the converted Christian groups. In short there is no Christian Brotherhood. Christians from Kerala are high caste converts and would not marry other Christians whom they considered lower class. Thus only benefit of conversion, “brotherhood in faith” is denied to these miserable lower caste people who tried to escape from the age old social segregation. Thirty percent of high caste Christians control 90% of the religious endowments in India.

We would discuss briefly here the Muslim Brotherhood and explore the Muslim heterogeneity among the converted. Apart from real theological differences among Muslims like Sunni and Shia, caste differences have been retained by consanguinity and discrimination persists among the Indian (and also Pakistani and Bangladeshi) Muslims. People of Turkish, Arab and Persian origin are considered as of superior birth and are called Ashrafs whereas the Hindu converts, mainly from skilled professions like weavers, potters, barbers are Ajilfs. Not only there is no intermarriage among these two groups, the Ajilfs were called by Ziaudin Barani pejoratively as “low born bazaar people, base, mean, worthless, plebeian, shameless and of dirty birth.” Barani advises Sultan Tughlak, “They should not be given any education other than just enough of the rules of prayer, fasting along with some chapter of Quran. Otherwise, it is like thrusting precious stone into the throat of a dog and putting a collar of gold on a pig.” Recently the Ulema (Muslim religious council) had to confront this issue of accepting converted Muslims as equals, when they planned conversion in Tamilnad, which is making it difficult to advance their plans, not that there is any great resistance by the Hindus. Of course, there are Arzals who are untouchables among the Muslims.

While the caste-ism among Christians and Muslims is the problem of enthusiastic converts and their leaders to solve, it is no consolation for Hindus; we are for the moment concerned with disintegration of Hindu society. Closer to the heart of the Hindus is the religion of Sikhs, which was a great reformation of Hinduism like Jainism and Buddhism... Hindus who became Sikhs retain their caste alliance. For an example Jat Sikh would marry Jat Hindu rather than Aurora Sikh. Caste supersedes religion.

Arguments against Caste based reservations:

Various commissions launched by the government have recommended reservations in government jobs and educational (mainly professional) institutions and their recommendations be implemented by the States. There are vigorous arguments advanced on both sides of reservation issue. The opponents of reservations argue that reservations should be based on the income alone or the level poverty, and not be based on the caste. Caste based reservations lead to reverse discrimination, which indeed has happened in many states, especially in South India and in Tamilnadu in particular. Unfortunately this does not correct the long standing segregation and the complex factors of what social scientists call “culture of poverty” that would keep the oppressed (Dalits) from being elevated into upper classes, as we have seen after sixty years.

Centuries of discrimination and social segregation caused the untouchable to be deprived both culturally and economically, not to mention educationally. Even if economically the group makes some advances, cultural deprivation would hold them back. Consider the example of a Dalit student whose father earns enough to be on par with more forward classes economically, but he is a drunk who comes home and beats his wife every night, or tells his son to take the cow to the pasture for the day and skip the school. Cultural deprivation denies the boy association of motivated peers and his parental expectation and family role models may be less encouraging for motivating him in the educational ventures. The young man is indeed culturally deprived regardless of his economic standing. Unless the Dalits are fully integrated socially, it may be argued that economic recovery becomes impossible for them. Economic uplifting, however, does not guarantee assimilation in the higher castes nor cultural advancement. Culture sets the foundation of success. Thus the cultured poor when given the opportunity seem to gather momentum than the culturally deprived rich. The Western education with a strong liberal educational emphasis and all round development in the educational institution and adopting a more refined English language adopted to be spoken at home and also in the public is an equalizing process in the English speaking world but still color and ethnicity interfere with integration in the "higher" society except for the exceptionally talented. At one time Nadars of Tamilnad were devastate and became poor after the dominance of Nayaks, but revived their status in a few years. Therefore, it must be argued that the support for the Dalits (suppressed castes) has to be continued indefinitely until they recover both economically and culturally. Indian constitution provided support through reservations initially for ten years, but after sixty years, there is no measurable improvement in this group. All things being equal there should not be any reservations: but since all things are not equal, reservations are justified.

Leaving aside the feudal Castes, there are various degrees of backwardness, not quite uniform and difficult to categorize. Before the advent of British, it was said that 30-40% people were in skilled professions. For instance, the weavers were of good economic standing and the colonial Government destroyed their profession forcing them to take to farming. Thus various groups became economically poor and showed differing degrees of cultural backwardness discriminating against each other’s caste and sub-caste. The case is well made that they are not well ahead of the Dalits and they too need help through reservations. Sachar commission categorized as backward castes comprising of 54% of the population and listed some 3000 of such “backward castes.” This group in India who form the majority of the Hindus as well as the majority of the Indians poses the challenge to the present political system.

MOVEMENT ACROSS THE CASTE LINES:

Movement across the caste lines occurred among the other backward classes, who were mainly small farmers, who became farmers by loss of professions, barbers, iron smiths, and other home grown industries which were estimated to account for 40% of the population before the advent of British Colonialism. More recently as the middle class got educated and economically advanced, the old caste identification was abandoned as men from lower socio-economic Communities changed their identity. The reverse is true with Gujarati Immigrants to African continent. Many sub-castes have coalesced and a few, erstwhile prosperous groups as Naidus in Andhra upscaled themselves by acquiring new caste titles like Chowdhary, a phenomenon previously unknown in Andhra. For example the Central government Minister Renuka Choudhary is a former Naidu, never mind the grammar; she should be Chowdharani to be grammatically correct!!

The “other backward communities” (OBC), since liberalization of the economy, have made significant economic advances and, especially, in urban areas have acquired middle class status, leading to considerable independence from the traditional landed aristocracy. Indira Gandhi attributed the growth of BJP for this middle class development. Regardless of the accuracy of her analysis, it is a fact that the traditional establishment is losing grip over the country. Kansi Ram in UP organized coalition of Dalits and OBCs and thus defeated Congress. Congress which relied on Muslim vote bank came short. The OBCs which never had political clout have surfaced to challenge the establishment. The Maoist leadership in Andhra, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh comes from this group. There is considerable cross over among the castes in this group, since there is nothing gained by identifying with their original caste. Many of the other backward classes have converted to some denominations of Christianity. Mulayam Yadav and Mayavathi recently traveled outside their native State to promote such a coalition of OBC’s and Dalits. These developments are alarming, posing a threat to National security. This statement does not need elaboration here. Many are converted by political design to Buddhism (Navabuddhas - New Buddhists) who can be easily converted subsequently en mass to Christianity. These groups seek political opportunism, luring Muslims and Maoists to join them. In UP Mayavathi was successful in courting even discriminated Brahmins to join her.

The strategy of these coalitions is to divide the OBC and Dalit groups among themselves. In Andhra, for example the Chief Minister Rajasekhar Reddy (Christian Reddy) promised one group of Dalits (Chamars) Madiga to reclassify them in order to get them better share of reservation which sets them against another untouchable group Mala. Traditionally each caste, even the backward castes, looked down upon the next lower with disdain if not in contempt; for instance cat eaters are superior to rat eaters, crab eaters are superior to frog eaters and of course vegetarians are the uppermost and all non-vegetarian Hindus of all castes are covertly considered of lower caste status regardless of their higher socio-economic class. The Hindu narcissism is peculiarly focused on what they eat. The non-vegetarians even among the organizations driven to unite the Hindu community are secretly looked down upon and vegetarians openly and covertly take pride in their unspoken higher status. It is easy to divide the people politically when they are lacking in educational sophistication and are divided on the basis of silly dividing factors that don't amount to any ethnic, biologic, or even cultural differences. These minor differences amounted to what they eat or what they wear or where they hail from or what minor differences are there in the dialect they speak, until many groups acquire new identity with higher education and independent employment. There is no need to identify one with blighted caste as for example that of Devadasis (artisans or temple girls) or Chamars. There was an instance of someone addressing a person as Chamar and the case went all the way to Supreme Court and it was decided objectionable to address one as a Chamar (shoe maker). Strangely one has to call oneself a Chamar to get the benefit of reservation! The same will apply to those who belong to the caste of Devadasis. Thus reservations become anti-progressive and fossilize the caste divisions. In what country would a son or a descendant of a prostitute required to officially and repeatedly declare his "socially" looked down upon identity and genealogy publicly to gain government favors?

Vote Bank Reservations and Muslims:

In order to garner sectarian support, the secular advocates promote reservations based on the minority status for Muslims. They cannot be called backward because of the distribution of wealth falls along the same range among them as among the Hindus, except none are comparable to Dalits. Besides, Muslims are the former rulers of some parts of India and ruled India (Hindus) for over six hundred years. The narcissism of the ruling Muslims was significantly mitigated by the Maratha empire but the British even further demoted them as a class. The "lower class" Muslims are not created by the Hindu majority as is widely publicized. There have been other factors causing their backwardness like in many other Muslim countries but it is not the topic of discussion in this article. No Muslim would accept that he is culturally backward, although many indeed are by all standards, as my long time Muslim friend used to say that his people are better than Brahmins because they eat with a spoon and a Brahmin eats dipping his fingers into rice. Who are the “minorities” in India any way? A Brahmin in Tamilnad is in minority, so also in Karnataka and Kerala. Since there is nothing as Hindu to be counted as a single unified group even for the national census since the time of the British and the definition of Hindu by the British was based upon the elimination criteria, Hindus being divided by the British on warring caste lines, taken singly any Hindu caste obviously and admittedly becomes technically a minority. In this regards a Muslim can be in fact an effective majority in many places and even in India can be seen as 150 million strong though flaunting as a "minority" demanding even privileges that hard to come by indeed for many "Hindu minorities" because Hindus are deeply divided with caste lines. This is the real basis for courting the Muslims in vote bank politics as divined by the crafty politicians who are the wolves in the sheep skin. If and when Hindus assume the super ordinate identity as Hindus that supersedes the caste identity, however, they may have a voice in the governance as "Hindu constituency" which the Hindu leaders lack. Hindus will have a similar situation like the Indian Mulsims and Hindus then will matter as a "vote bank" for the politicians who know now that Hindus don’t mean anything in the election politics, only the castes have the power to help them elect. So the Hindu politicians like those of BJP leanings have a great difficulty uniting Hindus across the caste lines to support them with sufficient majority. Even the BJP seems to be loosing its steam on the Hindu agenda under these circumstanes. There is no use crying over the spilt milk as Hindus too had sixty years to bring their house into order and they have failed miserably. Therefore, it is tempting for the BJP leaders also to use the power house of the castes politics to win the elections. Besides, it is high time that the BJP realize that it actually represents a conglomerate of minorities smaller than the Muslim minority and not the 80% "majority" as the BJP leaders are deluded into believing. Neither is their political performance over the last fifteen years prove that they (the BJP leaders) are truly protecting the interest of the Hindus and they have been viewed as letting the Hindus down when the moment of truth arrives as for example not empathizing with Varun Gandhi and looking into what he was retorting about and what was the situation of injustice and atrocities in his constituency he was reacting to. Instead, the BJP leaders felt he needed to be vociferously corrected with moralistic preaching or they felt they needed to focus on the lack of freedom of speech or criticize their own for being too mouthy.

To suggest that anyone can provide a simple solution for the caste problems, which had eluded the best of the Hindu brains, is preposterous. It is only by the serious, dedicated, and combined efforts of leadership, social, religious and political that a true strategy to end the dominance of casteism in the Indian society can be formulated. Even then implementing it in reality will present a great challenge. There is a great inertia in the Hindu and Indian society to emerge out of the caste classification of people regardless of the religion they practice in India.

Patriotic people like Communist P. Sundaraih (Secretary of Communist party of India) never used his Caste title Reddy. They should not only abandon the use of caste titles, but actively insist on not naming their children with such titles. Caste based reservations for all castes should be eliminated. An attempt should be made to forge a new identity for Hindus as Hindus based on Hindu Nationalism otherwise called Hindutva; if the phrase is shopworn they may use another term.

It is clear by now that there are stong arguments in favor of reservation and these are matched by equally strong arguments against the caste based reservations. The compromise may be to adopt the reservation policy based purely on socio-economic class and actual economic status of the students.

HINDUTVA OR HINDU NATIONALISM VS CASTE SECULARISM

Hindutva focusing on the Hindu majority is dubbed as “communalism” by the secularists who are indeed the caste communalists that are also focused on the minorities. Hindutva is recognized all over the world, even by those who resent it, as Hindu Nationalism, albeit conservative or extreme. Cultural Nationalism is not new. The Jewish movement of Zionism united all Jews from different parts of Europe. Those countries that support Israel are in effect supporting cultural nationalism. Alarmed at the demographic assault on American soil, the debate is raging on the limits of multiculturalism, demanding that the multiculturalism can be allowed only so far and no further and the country should be Judeo-Christian centered. This has come to be main focus by recent demands by Muslim Jihadists in England and France to force the state to recognize their cultural distinction in schools and public places and finally even demanding the rule of Sharia for themselves and later for others too!! The Muslim cultural nationalism is demanding its place in many Western and Eastern coountries. However, the Hindu cultural nationalism has no place in its own home land. It is regrettable that the secular caste communalists seek to equate Hindu nationalist leaders with Christian (Christists) proselytizing evangelists and Jihadists. It is a shameful assault on Hinduism if it is called Fundamentalism; the only religion which is not fundamental, since there is not a single scripture or single religious head defining anything fundamental for the Hindus. That Jesus is the only savior and only through him you go to heaven or else you burn in eternal hell is a prime example of fundamentalism. Do they want to equate Hinduism with this or with Jehadi concept that Mohammad is the final messenger of God and every word he uttered came from God which should not be even translated independently. Then if one does translate or transliterate the word of Mohammad one can be beheaded and that women be kept under veil and can be stoned to death for violating Sharia? That is what is meant by fundamentalism. Hinduism which is and has been pluralistic for several millennia can never be equated with any such fundamentalism by any stretch of imagination. If the secularists oppose Hindutvavadins who oppose conversion with concern for the demographic onslaught, over a time their alternative will be the widespread resurgence of Christist evangelism and Jihadi religion all over India. The choice is theirs. There is no other alternative. There are dissenters from this view. However, common sense would lead to the conclusion that the non-proselytizing majority can be reduced to a mere minority within a matter of decades by the proselytizing religions as it is a one way street for the converts and they cannot go back to their Hindu fold. In addition, the Hindus practice or are open to practice birth control but majority of the Christians (Catholics for example) and all of the Muslims are opposed to birth control. Given this situation the secularists’ refusal to accept the fear of extinction of the Hindus (because of undeterred heavily financed mass conversions in India) foreseen by the Hindutvavadins is self defeating in the longer run except if they mean that secularism has no objection to Christian and Muslim majority rule in India by reducing Hindu into minority in their own land. That will be the end of true secularism. Show us one secular Muslim country. Secularism now thrives in India only because of the Hindu majority and the basic Hindu ethos. (See the article, “Dhee: Essence of Hinduness” on http://www.swaveda.com/ )

To cite two examples of non-political intellectuals who had launched blistering attacks against Hindutva are Amartya Sen and Pratap Bhanu Mehta, both received their under graduate education in England and mostly spent their developmental years in the West and therefore it is difficult for them to appreciate Hindu ethos.

Writing in the wake of Narendra Modi’s election, Pratap Bhanu Mehta (head of a think-tank in India) bemoaned the fate of India because of Hindutva resurgence and stated that “while Indians are respected all over the world India is not”. While I am not sure how Indians are respected apart from their National and ethnic origins, the reason, if it is true that they are not respected, is not because they are Hindu Nationalists. We can give other cogent explanations even presuming that his argument is true that Indians are not respected. He should understand, the lack of self-respect in the Indians and how they themsleves make them cheap. Their clear lack of identity as identity as belonging to a proud Nation, hypocrisy of lecturing to world on religious tolerance, and above all slavish idolatry of Nehru dynasty in the name of democracy (demonarchy) of which Mehta, in spite of his prolific writing on democracy has not brought himself to condemn are a few good reasons which blighted India as a mature Nation to be taken seriously. Monarchic succession of Sonia Gandhi and in fact of Nehru progeny has been compared in the Western press to the ascent to the power of Sukarno Putri, Mrs. Bandaranayke, and Benazir Bhutto and her and son. At least any one of them is capable of facing foreign press whereas Sonia has to be shielded from the press by her sycophants when she visited America because of her incompetence in facing the world-press... Indian citizens have to witness even one press conference given by Sonia on the television. She can read speeches written by others but has no courage to stand on her own toes to defend her policies or governance of her party to sharp reporters. Asking the U.S Government to deny Visa to Narendra Modi, a man who one day could be the Prime Minister of India, regardless how hateful some groups are of him, is the zenith of indignity towards Indians. Can any one imagine an American group regardless of their religious affiliation and opposition to his religous group gathering and agitating to deny visa to Henry Kissinger in another foreign country as some believed that he should have been tried in an International court, or to Dick Cheney, whom many critics in the U.S regarded as an International Criminal who violated the Principles of Geneva Convention? A proud expatriate American would never engage in such activity to shame his own country and a fellow countryman with or without any basis. Indians whether in India or abroad may not, therefore, be respected for their lack of self-respect, sycophancy, and obsequiousness. The elected leaders of India need to be respected though challenged to defend their views, policies and performance. Why would anyone respect Indians if they don't respect themselves and their own. While Indian immigrants, NRI’s are insulted under the guise of academic freedom by Michael Witzel, the Chairman of the Department of Sanskrit and Indian Studies (Eurasian Language Research group) at Harvard as “Non_Returning_Indians,” Government of India without registering its protest with Harvard University on behalf of its expatriate citizens sets up an endowed chair at Harvard University costing millions of dollars, in the name of Nehru, who was not even a scholar of economics but a garden variety socialist. At least there is something to be said about Gandhian economics but there is no Nehruvian economics. Could the Government of India not insist that Harvard faculty not publicly demonstrate its bigotry towards Indians before giving millions to establish an endowed chair? Indian leaders have no pride in their own institutions. Mehta tells us how nice Indian Muslims are on the authority of a New York Times Journalist, Tom Friedman. Indians don’t need a New Yorker to testify for Indian Muslims; Indians know them quite well. He also has the gall to scare all non-Muslim Indians that, if only Muslims of India should turn violent, they would be uncontrollable. He forgets the history that on call from Jinnah for Direct Action, blood flowed on the streets of Indian cities from Kerala to Punjab. India did control them, where they could not, Pakistan was formed, and there is no need for further paranoia of Muslim uprising.

Amartya Sen like Mehta, avowed atheist, is author of "Argumentative Indian" who received his undergraduate education in England and earned a Nobel Prize in economics. For India Nobel laureates are precious as they are only one or two in a century from their country and therefore, they are reluctant to criticize them. But Sen had the habit of dabbling into areas in which he has little expertise, like Indian History and contemporary politics. His visceral hatred for BJP is understandable considering his bias and it is his prerogative as to which party he prefers, but his hatred extends to Hindutva proponents en mass. Unfortunately, Amartya Sen reminds us of another Nobel Laureate in America, William Bradford Shockley, the inventor of the transistor who revolutionized the electronic age, but could not resist his temptation to scientifically prove, although not qualified by his academic training, that Blacks are intellectually inferior. He finally disgraced himself, and alienated his colleagues and family. The comparison of Sen with Shockley is valid in so far as to transferring his reputation from one field to another and especially in a confrontational stance, which discredits his fair name. Amartya Sen’s forays into the subject of politics and history, although viewed with benign indifference in India, outside the country the critics are not less sanguine. He is particular in praising the generosity of Muslims and even equating them with the Hindus in their broad-mindedness. Commenting on Sen’s historical dissertation on Maimonides being generously treated by Muslim Saladin, Foud A. Ajmi excoriates how Sen traverses the world, with limited knowledge and points out, “history cannot bend to his good cheer.” Bending history to his fancy is what Sen does, when he compares Akbar to Ashoka, a comparison at best flimsy and at worst vulgar. In his recent book “Argumentative Indian,” he sets his prejudices against BJP, VHP and even RSS and advocates his own style of secularism. Leaving aside all the hyperbole of Akbar’s interests in comparative religion, if his intention was to impress the Muslims, he ought to have known that the most celebrated of the Muslim Intellectuals of India, the theoretician of Pakistan creation, Muhammad Iqbal set Alamgir Aurangzeb and not Akbar as the ideal for Indian Muslims. Sen's views have no takers among the Muslims in any case. His prognostication of defeat of BJP as lasting is belied by its victory in Karnataka and again in Gujarat. In living so long in England, he ought to know that, in a mature democracy, elections are not fought merely on ideology and if it were so there would be no need for elections every five years. He makes flippant comments that Hindutvavadins do not have scholarship in Sanskrit, ignorant of the fact that whatever Sanskrit is taught at the grass root level in general public in India today is by Sangha parivar through Sanskrit Bharati; before that Sanskrit learning was an exclusive province of Brahmins. He has so much to write about Hindutva, but little about the demonarchy of one family in India erected in power and sustained by sycophants for nearly sixty years. If Sen wants to get into the gutter of partisan politics and fight BJP, he should not expect his outstanding credentials in economics to immunize him from the criticism of his sophomoric and outlandish pronouncements. He is out of touch with the current political landscape in India and his ignorance is evident when he calls Shyama Prasad Mukherji “Mukhopadhyaya.” He is not aware that naming Godse as a member RSS was the cause of legal action by that organization, except they are likely to be more generous and ignore him. (The historical fact is that RSS prevailed in the Supreme Court of India on this issue and its leaders were exonerated when made political prisoners on false charges. The Supreme Court even debarred Nehru for several days to make a point that Nehru had acted unconstitutionally).

Why are some Hindu elite so hysterically against Hindutva- not necessarily against organizations which advocate Hindutva? We have no issue with them for critiquing BJP or Shiva Sena or any other organization promoting Hindutva, which is not exclusive province of these groups. Hindutva is not an intellectual property of these organizations. Only conceivable explanation is that these intellectual critics are from the privileged castes and are happy with status quo. Hindutva that emphasizes not only public morality but also private behavior is annoying for them. There is a streak of righteousness among the Hindutvavadins that is offensive to the so called modernists, especially to the dialectical secularists. All proud Hindus are essentially Hindutvavadins and it is not necessary that they speak for the RSS, BJP, Shiv Sena or Bajarang Dal. There is a silent majority in India that is strongly Hindutvavadin and Hindu nationalists are not necessarily affiliated with the political parties that are identified with this school of thought. The Hindutvavadins are not any less secular or less tolerant than the so called Secularists. The professors at Harvard do not have this knowledge.

Conclusion

Critiques of Hindutva take a broadside that Hindus should think in terms of universal brotherhood and should include Muslims in consideration of reform. Universalism is the utopia enshrined in Hindu culture which advocates Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (world is one family), but such broadmindedness is possible only for the people of high-mindedness (udara charitanam), not low-minded (laghuchetasam). Utopia is only an ultimate goal until, in a practical sense, there is no alternative to promoting nationalism based on culture. One of the greatest experiment in modern times was that of the Soviet Union based on geographic nationalism which miserably failed despite seventy years of Marxist indoctrination and teaching Russian. It could not tame the flames of Muslim fanatic fervor within their own borders. It should, therefore, be the realistic goal of Hindus to unite all the castes by focusing on Hindutva. Uniting Hindus is for their own welfare and survival and not against some other community as the detractors are quick to attribute. The secularists, who are against cultural nationalism, are adamant about limiting their vision to geographic boundaries; for instance Sen calls Panini, the great Sanskrit grammarian, an Afghan! Then should Buddha be regarded a Nepali?

As the agrarian aristocracy of upper and forward castes advances and acquires industrial wealth, as indeed is happening in India, the backward classes (OBC) which are 54% numerically strong and the developing middle class will nurture hatred and the conflict is in the offing. This is what we witnessed with the Maoist group in Orissa riots during which they joined evangelical converts, a seemingly unholy alliance but for the bond resulting from lower class nexus between these groups. Phony liberalism of the secular pretenders will encourage evangelization and mass conversion of the Hindus assisted by foreign money. This is an ultimate demographic assault. This is already occurring in the State of Kerala. The people who support religious conversion in the name of so called freedom of religion will rue the day when Hindus become ultimate minority, where people like Sen, a avowed atheist will have no place. It is a strange mix of Christist, Muslim and Leftists that is emerging in India and the uprising of the 54% majority joining this nexus is an alarming thought. There would be no free country nor any secularism if this scenario becomes a reality. Why would anyone want to trade a pluralistic religion which allows worship of a bald stone or a cross without losing one’s identity to a proselytizing denomination? Hinduism in India is the only true tolerant Religion (espousing the values of Dharmasahishnuta and Sarvadharmasamabhaava) and even accepts atheists. It has demonstrated it in practice for millennia without loudly preaching it. It cannot be compared with any other religion including the all inclusive Baha'is. Religion is a highly personal matter for the Hindu although public celebration of religious festivals and participation in group prayers is available to all Hindus. Hindus comprehend the right of an individual, therefore, to have his/her own spiritual or religious preferences. Such religious tolerance of the Hindus should not, however, be confused with acceptance of forced religious pluralism or acceptance of conversions amounting of demographic attacks on the Hindu society at large. The former is graciousness and the latter a mass suicide. If other religions behave as if their tooth brush is the best and the only toothbrush in the world designed for the humans and Hindus must give up their own set of tooth brushes designed variously and use those designed and provided by other religions instead, it would be considered absurd. But the God of some non-Hindu religions is being sold like the best tooth brush in the world in the "spiritual" market of India. "Secular Nation" is not a free market for selling "God-toothbrushes" by coercion, deceit, and allurements, further fragmenting the already fragmented society. Social evils can be eliminated purely on humanistic grounds and with consciousness of the human rights and do not require proselytization to combat and eradicate them. Change in religious beliefs enforced on any society cannot be expected to eliminate STD's for example. Muslims do not need to be converted to become Hindus so they can educate themselves or learn to rationally practice birth control. The tooth brush salesmen of proselytizing religions offer their religion as a solution to the age old problem of casteism and economic deprivation. It is high time the Government of India, if not lured by the influx of foreign exchange, and the vested interest of the leaders in the governance, put a stop to religious conversions.

The challenge of historic proportions for the, social, political and intellectual Indian leadership is how to integrate the castes into a Hindu Nation (Rashtra), before more favors are doled out in the form of reservations based upon caste and minority cleavages in the society rather than on affirmative action based upon Socio-economic classification further petrifying or fossilizing the caste and religion based divisions exacerbating the present fragmentation in the Indian society which will be heading towards destructive confrontation with bickering over a conundrum of facts and figures and misleading statistics. The logistics for implementing affirmative action and creating a National Identity in India remains a major challenge and the peculiar meaning given to the word “secularism” in India is not forging a National identity but is causing a breakdown in the Indian society. Such breakdown will lead to more destruction than compromising to accept the pluralistic Hindu Nation philosophy that allows for acceptance of diversity and equality before the law. The promulgation of the view that the Hindu Nation is anti-secular is emerging from the vote-bank vested politics. The concept of Secular Hindu Nation needs to be clearly understood and is a necessity of our time for forging a consolidated National Identity.

II Vande Mataram II

Comments to seshachalamd@gmail.com

INDIAN SECULARISM: a Sham Part I

INDIAN SECULARIM: a Sham
(An Overview of Caste-ism)


Part I

(Caste and Nationalism in India)

Seshachalam Dutta. PhD

Edited and modified by Shree Vinekar

MODERN DAY CASTE DIVISION in India is a cancer that has pernicious effect on the Indian society when it is injected into politics and exploited by politicians.

Indian political scene resounds with slogans of socialism, communism, secularism and anti-communalism. Nevertheless, the only operating factor of all political parties who shout these slogans is rank caste communalism, as witnessed when Congress party and its so called “secular” allies were campaigning in Gujarat, publicly and unabashedly discussing the strategy of fielding candidates of particular castes to defeat Narendra Modi in a state election. In spite of such base tactics of the Congress party, Modi indeed resoundingly won the elections because of his impeccable character, charisma, and in no small measure due to the enlightened Gujarati population with uniquely international reach. This does not repeat often. We would like to examine here the true meaning of these slogans: “secularism,” “communalism,” and “socialism,” in principle, and also in the particular context of the Indian political scene, for these words retain only their original meaning outside the Indian context and no new meanings can be given to suit one's convenience in India, although the Indian usage of the words like "secular" and "communal" is totally incomprehensible to those outside India. These words are not at all used, for example, in the US political system. It is the opinion of the author that there is neither secularism nor socialism in India in the strict sense, but abject discriminatory communalism at caste level that is evident ubiquitously. The sloganeers of secularism falsely label “Hindu Nationalism” pejoratively as “communal” while hiding their own petty sectarian mindset. We will also explore why they resort to those tactics. The thrust of this two part article is to provide a cross sectional view of the political activities under the name of secularism and socialism as they impact the already fragmented Hindu society along the caste lines and religions practiced in India. The objective of this article is not to discuss the pros and cons of the caste system per se which was originally designed to maintain the harmonious coexistence of different groups and to effect division of labor or responsibilty, nor to examine the merit of Varna and Jatis or the principle of Varnashramadharma. The original Varnashrama Dharma postulated only four Varnas based on Gunakarma Vibhagashah (meaning according to the qualities and the occcupation.) Such classification is no longer valid in the modern day system represented by 3000 castes. This article will also explore the need for Nationalism and the form of Nationalism emerging in India with a Hindu-centric pan-Indian identity.

India is fourth in the number of Billionaires in the world and ranked 128th in the level of poverty behind Guatemala and Gabon and also ranked with the most corrupt countries in the world, while Indian politicians go round the world lecturing morality!! We, therefore, should be able to simply dismiss the claim of socialism, which was inserted by Indira Gandhi into the directing principles of the Constitution of India through an amendment while her party (including her own son) was hording the wealth of the nation. It may be recalled that when Jawaharlal Nehru became the secretary of Indian National Congress, he was dissuaded by his father from drawing a salary (as revealed in Nehru's autobiography), even though the family was utterly broke. His father was trying to sell the family furniture and other collections or return to work from his retirement! Nehru’s grandfather, Gangadhar Nehru, was not rich either; he was a low paid employee who had migrated to Agra to earn a livelihood. Maruti Motors started by Indira’s son with no capital was a testimony to the plunder of Nation’s wealth. Having thus dismissed the claim of socialism by giving above examples, only secularism remains to be discredited as the most confabulated expression in the context of Indian politics.

What is secularism? Western Nations including the U.S do not use the word “secular” to describe their Governments. The United State supports separation of Church and State, which is not the same as secularism. The U.S. currency is printed with the words “IN GOD WE TRUST,” the presidents takes oath of office on the Bible in contrast to non-Hindus walking away from parliament in India whenever Vande Mataram is recited. In following Christian tradition, alcohol is not served after midnight on Saturday! The British King attends the Mass officiated by the Archbishop of Canterbury. All Churches uniformly denounce secularism as “anti-spiritual.” By definition secularism is in fact anti-spiritual. The Government or the State may be allowed to be secular if the meaning of this word is to separate the Church (religion) and the State, but a civilized society cannot be anti-spiritual (meaning secular) and thereby secular. Here the word spiritual is closer to “Dharma” and secular is viewed as its antonym of Dharma when used in the Indian context. Furthermore Dharma is erroneously considered a brand name of Hindu or Sanatana Dharma and the word secular is generally understood as "anti-Hindu." Curiously there are no qualms of conscience for the secular political leaders to be openly pro-Muslim or pro-Christian but their conduct is calculated to be anti-Hindu to maintain their "secular" image.

"Truly secular" societies were communist whose Governments universally failed. It is possible to be genuinely secular and principled at individual level and there are very few such extremely enlightened persons. They structure their lives based on Humanism and atheistic existential philosophy. Historically, Karl Marx who earned a Doctorate and lived and died in poverty and Lenin who worked late hours in a single room office as the Head of Soviet Union are some of them. In India atheistic social reformer and a friend of this author, GORA, in Andhra Pradesh, who spent his entire life advocating atheism, is an example of such persons. He spent his entire life for social reform. Another Indian I knew was P. Sundaraih, secretary of Communist party of India, a great patriot who dedicated his life for his country who hailed from Andhra Pradesh. Also, Mr. A. B. Shah in Maharashtra, who was an atheist who worked hard to spread the message that Indian society had a great need to learn to become secular is now hardly remembered. The secularists believe in humanism as guiding principle to conduct their work for the welfare of the society governed by social consciousness without reference to God or religious inspiration. It is a difficult approach to life since they operate without the substratum of traditional or religious guidelines, but base their ethics and conscience on the intellectual construct of scientific humanism and existential philosophy making their own situational ethics as they go along. As Octavia Paz commented the burden of life for atheists is not any easier than that for believers. This cannot be advocated to general population.

Secularism is by definition an ethical atheistic ideology which is not espoused by the present Indian politicians, who thrive on exploiting the caste for their advancement, and are patently corrupt. They are sometimes openly and many a time covertly highly superstitious and ritualistic in their personal lives showing magical thinking, consulting astrologists, and visiting the so-called “spiritual” leaders, shrines, and places of worship to gain personal blessings as well as to capture vote banks. By denouncing the Hindu traditionalists whose inspiration is the great traditions of the motherland and its ancient over-arching religion (Sanatana Dharma) giving rise to the very roots of Indian (Hindu) culture spanning the length and breadth of India, the modern Indian politicians seem not so constrained by any moral principles (Dharma), neither do they practice ethical atheism, and therefore, are corrupt and use the slogan of secularism to exonerate their public and private corrupt conduct and political opportunism. The meaning of the word secular is distorted and watered down beyond recognition. By defining “secularism” as “Dharma-nirapeksha” rather than “Pantha-nirapeksha” in the constitution of India the Congress Party which introduced it in the constitution has misinterpreted secularism to mean “amoral” or “indifferent” to “morality and ethics” (Dharma). Nehru who used this word knew its meaning and he was ethical and non-corrupt. The Indian political leaders also by convention interpret the word “dharma” not in its generic or global meaning as human ethics but translate it erroneously as specifically limited to Hinduism and take pride in bashing it for sixty years in the public political sphere while secretly adhering to the Hindu beliefs and rituals privately. Such duplicity and hypocrisy is rampant among the Indian politicians besides taking pride in pandering to groups following other than the Hindu religion in the name of secularism. The concept of secularism has thus led to a dishonest and pseudo-identity to emulate a non-existent “ego-ideal” (an idealized image of a person to be emulated) defined by each individual to suit himself in an idiosyncratic manner. This is why the word “pseudo-secular” came into vogue. The words "secular" and "pseudo-secular" are only seen widely used in the English media in India and in the Indian political scene and those who are not familiar of the Indian meaning of these words are easily misled. Similarly the word "communal" which is not very commonly used in politics all over the world but in India is incorrectly used as a political curse word. Cleverly implied in this curse word are nuances of fanaticism, narrow-mindedness, communal hatred, political imperialism, etc., creating an instant aversive stink to the term in the minds of the readers or listeners to get a political mileage for the sloganeering politician (see "Secularism and Communalism: Most Abused Words" on http://www.sookta-sumans.blogspot.com/ above). For the purpose of discussion in this article the word "communalism" is momentarily used in this perverted sense as per the usage in Indian journalistic context and not in the true original innocuous sense.

Indian Government itself is extremely “communal” indeed in that it panders to the extreme Muslim elements financing Haj pilgrimage for the Muslims to visit the foreign land and Mecca and Medina; by making a constitutional amendment exempting the Muslims from the common civil code for example by allowing the Muslim women to be deprived of alimony and enabling their men to have four wives. With all the doting of Muslims for sixty years, the secularists could not get mere forty acres of land owned by the Government for Amarnath Pilgrimage for the Hindu travelers from Kashmiri Muslims who vociferously protested! During the heat of this conflict Farooq Abdullah, the Chief Minister of Kashmir, uttered the words which were no less threatening or inflammatory than the recent words of Varun Gandhi. In fact, Abdullah’s words were more inflammatory with a potential to trigger communal riots which they did instigate in Kashmir. He said, “If 45 acres of land is given to the Hindu pilgrims, there will be a blood bath all over India.” These words were publicized in all the world media. However, the Government of India let alone not arrest him not even reprimanded him, but it was quick to jump its gun at Varun Gandhi’s non-specific remarks in defense of aggression against Hindus by non-Hindus. Under the present absurd political egalitarianism the Christians too will demand Government funds to visit their holy land or Vatican for pilgrimage but they do not have enough votes to influence the secular politicians yet.

The author of "Argumentative Indian," Amartya Sen (Nobel Laureate in Economics and a strong supporter of the present Congress government), who claims secular credentials, supports this constitutional amendment legitimizing the separate Muslim Civil Code as if it is not violating Secularism and his justification for it is : “Since it is only unfair to Muslims (meaning to ladies like Bhanu Begum.)” Hindus, he says, should not make a point of it- as though fairness has to be a sectarian judgment! The Nobel scholar forgets that “equality before the law” is the foundation of modern democracy and he forgets too that the equality before the law cannot be a subordinated value even in the so-called Secular State. Hindus should have the right to voice their opinion about the unfairness in the Civil Laws of their own country even though it may perpetrate injustice only on Muslim women. Besides, very few people outside India know that the religious assets of Hindus in India are totally controlled by the "secular" government retaining the notorious antiquated Hindu Endowment Act, promulgated by the British. The exercise of non-religious control of Hindu endowments is so pitiful that for the fear of Government seizing their assets, Ramakrishna Mission, founded by one of the greatest Hindu monks, Swami Vivekananda declared that theirs is not a Hindu organization! With all fervor for Ram Mandir in Ayodhya, even the BJP did not think it fit to scrap this antiquated British vestige of Hindu law inequitably applicable only to the Hindu religious institutions and not for others. Swami Dayanada is currently leading the movement to prevent the Government from spending Hindu temple income generated from donations received from Hindus to subsidize Haj for Muslim pilgrims to visit Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia. The Hindu Endowment act is in itself unconstitutional, if the Constitution were to be “secular.” In the name of secularism, on the other hand, the appeasement of Muslims is carried to the extreme as illustrated here by allowing an Indian Muslim artist to depict Sita, a sacred symbol of chastity for Hindus, in nudity for which he was honored by the Government of India; on the other hand a universally acclaimed work of "The Satanic Verses" of Salman Rushdie is banned outright, although it has no pornographic content, on the flimsy pretext that it offends the Muslim sentiments. It is okay to trample over the Hindu sentiments in Secular India where the Hindus are in majority but everyone has to be politically correct and walk on the egg shells when it comes to the sentiments of the “minority” religion that have learned to bully the politicians and the majority. The minority has over the years through vote-bank politics gained leverage over the Congress party. However, these practices are communal regardless which ruling party endorses these. So the Indian “Governments” are not only not secular, they do not even subscribe to “separation of Church and State” principle like the U.S and other Western countries do. It should be abundantly clear from the above examples that the Government of India is not guided by the principle of Secularism just like it is also not guided by the principle of socialism. That only leaves crass Caste-communalism as the operating factor of the so called secularists and thus “secularism” is an apology for caste-ism, the only form of communalism prevalent in India. It is indeed absurd that Hindu Nationalism being concerned with the safety, security, integrity and unity of the 80 percent majority population of India is considered “communal” by the secularists who appease and seek favors from the communal minorities by defining them in various ways promoting truly communal and caste biases to win the vote banks and defeat the interests of the majority. Protecting the interest of 80% majority population should not have be termed “communalism” in the eyes of the politicians while they have only small-minded communalism as their operating principle.

Caste and its influence on Hindu polity have a devastating effect and if not confronted head long the Hindu society and India will implode. Nehru writes (Discovery of India), “Without caste structure there is nothing Hindu.” But, he had no vision of seriousness of the problem it would present after the independence. When Mahatma Gandhi was campaigning against untouchability, Nehru writes from the Jail that Gandhi was wasting his time on such issues, leaving politics aside. For him, as a politician, the numbers mattered and the Untouchable were not of significant number to influence the politics, he thought; it is better he thought to pander to the Muslims (approximately 10% of the population of India then in 1946-47 which is now nearly at 17% or 150 million in strength making India the second largest Muslim country in the World next to Indonesia) who ultimately rejected him and his fellow politicians anyway when it was time to divide the country. He did not realize, at political level, that Dalit leader Jogendra Nath Mandal was courted by Jinnah (President of the Indian Muslim League) to join him to vote for partition. No one knows how much effect Mandal had in narrow margins of plebiscite in the states of Punjab and Bengal. Gandhi took to the heart the long standing injustice to Dalits and led a movement to eliminate untouchability and called the untouchables Harijans (Favorite people of God) Gandhi did not realize the global problem of caste in Hindu society as he limited the campaign to the extreme case of Harijans who later defined themselves as “Dalits” instigated by the Christist Missionary elements who have their own political agenda and ambitions in India. There were many religious leaders, however, beginning with Buddha and Mahavir in ancient times and later Ramanujacharya, Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya, Jnyaneshwar, Ekanath, Nam Dev,Tukaram,Vivekananda, RamMohan Roy, Avaiyar, Narayan Guru and lately Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh founder Hedgewar who tried to eliminate caste discrimination and to instill an attitude of equality for all castes as well the casteless Hindu Society including the outcastes and untouchables, and all of them failed. The RSS advocated proactively “Don’t ask don’t tell policy for 70 years” with out success. Therefore, one needs to raise the question, “Why is caste so resilient to reform?”

Caste has been resilient to reform, because it quickly leads to socioeconomic class stratification. Because of closed system of familial bonds, wealth is retained in the same group, commonly supported by large dowries in wealthy castes by marrying within the caste which is an unspoken mandate to the eligible youth and further support by consanguineous marriages such as marrying one’s niece. While rich stay rich, the poor stay poor by the same process of inbreeding, for movements across the castes upwards is not traditionally possible. Furthermore, natural selection favors the richer castes by Darwinian principle of selection of healthy handsome men and beautiful women confined to the same group of genetic pool. In a democracy, as we shall see, this can lead to inevitable conflict, as indeed to conflict it did lead at several levels. The socioeconomic inequalities and discrimination manifested in the present caste system with 3000 castes, and not the caste system itself, that has caused the uproar. The caste system is now fortified by the political reservations following the principle of affirmative action and electoral alliances, creating permanent victims and permanent beneficiaries. The proselytizing religions too are taking full advantage of this situation.

HISTORY OF CASTE CONFLICTS IN MODERN INDIA

First caste conflicts came in Madras Presidency, the State so called before division into Andhra and Tamil Nadu. The Brahmin population in the Madras State was estimated at 3% in 1920 and they were alleged to hold 70% of Government posts as well as most teaching positions in colleges and high schools. Aided by British Governor, guided by the well-known British policy of divide and rule, a Non-Brahmin party called Justice Party was formed with the leadership of Raja of Panagal (a Naidu Feudal Lord - Jamindar). The Congress, which then was predominantly Brahmin, withdrew and an offshoot of Congress named Swarajya Party won the elections against the Justice Party but it was not ratified by the British Governor. There was no universal suffrage and only Jamindars and high tax paying qualified voters were to vote. "Congress" never directly came to power for 17 years. The demise of the purely pro-British Justice Party in later years was attributed to lack of leadership. The party again re-surged like phoenix as DK in 1944 under the leadership of Periyar and later DMK and its progeny Anna DMK, with the ideology of anti-Brahmanism expanding its theme to being anti-Hindi, anti-Aryan, and anti-Hindu. Though a proclaimed atheist, Periyar did not have the courage to attack the Christian theism or the Muslim mosques but as an iconoclast attacked Hindu temples publicly in broad day light, physically destroying Hindu "idols," attacking Hindus and Brahmins who he considered were the soft targets. Brahmins, according to their analysis are Aryan with fair skin (although Periyar himself was of fair complexion) and were subjected to extreme reverse discrimination and DK-DMK claiming to be atheists would rather seek the alliance with Christians and Muslims than befriend Brahmins during the DK-DMK infancy! These groups have not been defeated by Congress either in recent decades. Anti-Brahmin movement did not succeed in Andhra, however, because the Brahmin community in Andhra was never as influential or dominating as in Tamil Nadu. Non-Brahmin movement also did not spread to North India at that time, until much later when Bhumihari Brahmins in Bihar and in U.P lost their dominance with caste awareness of other forward castes and fights were undertaken by the political leaders of higher “forward” castes who claimed “secular” credentials. Bhumiharis held 19 out of 54 parliamentary seats in Bihar. Dalits in Bihar who were left out in these developments turned to Communism and Maoist Naxalism to take up armed struggle against all “forward castes.” A vigilante organization, well funded by forward castes, called Ranavir Sena engaged in massacre of the Dalits. It may be recalled that Phoolam Devi, the legendary dacoit, who later became a member of Indian parliament, was the product in response to the atrocities of the Ranvir Sena. Left to themselves Dalits do not have significant advantage of numbers and, therefore, are not a political factor.

Recent caste violence was witnessed in Law College at Chennai where the police were silent spectators. The house of a Vice-Chancellor who supported a reasonable sounding 50% limit on reservations in Tamilnad was attacked for insisting on 50% seats to be offered on merit. There were riots in Meerut and Muzaffar Nagar. The man who brought a law suit before Supreme Court of India challenging the reservation policy was attacked and maimed right on the premises of the Supreme Court. In Andhra Pradesh, eve teasing Christian Dalits who mocked the Hindu women carrying water from public wells were beaten and their houses were burnt down. The then Chief Minister of Andhra, “N.T.R.,” (N. T. Rama Rao), compensated them by paying reparations. In Chundur, a town in Andhra Pradesh when a young man from the Dalit community set his feet on an empty seat in a cinema hall, the forward community youth in the front seat picked up a fight which subsequently resulted in days of rioting organized by the surpunch (community village leader) who belonged to the Congress Party. Scores of fleeing dalits were caught, hacked to death, bagged and were thrown in a canal. This riot was so widely publicized that it attracted the attention of the Human Rights groups and subsequent trials led to several lengthy sentences.

Who are the “forward classes,” leaving aside Brahmins and merchant castes (Baniyas)? To understand this one has to view the history of the Indian feudal system. To mention a few, in Tamilnadu the Mudaliars, Nadars, Nayaks and in Andhra Pradesh Reddys, Naidus, Rajus, Velamas constitute the feudal lords. In ancient India each kingdom, whether Pandyans, Cholas in Tamilnadu or early Satavahanas and later Kakatiyas brought recruits from other states who became later Reddys, Velamas and Rajus hailing from wide range of areas as far as Bihar and Maharashtra to boost their armies. Similar phenomenon occurred during Vijay Nagar Empire’s occupation of Andhra. Earlier Chalukyas had followed the similar recruitment of warrior groups. Economies of these kingdoms were so primitive, lacking monetization; they therefore granted villages to the generals as rewards for their services making them the feudal lords (Jamindars). Except Vijyanagar Empire, most of the kingdoms did not maintain standing armies and as a result were soundly defeated by Muslims who had such armies. Later, Muslims also adopted these methods, giving Jagirs (land and villages) to the generals. Thus the non-Brahmin forward classes were formed. In Bihar, UP, and Bengal Brahmins also joined the fighting forces and they became landowners acquiring the caste title of Bhumihari Brahmins. The Brahmins who did not perform rituals but functioned as advisors to kings in Andhra became Niyogis; a few of them had large land holdings or villages under them. They carry the caste title Rao which means like Rai, Raju meaning king; Rao is a common title in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, which has been widely used by other communities in recent years in non-descriptive way losing their caste specificity. To give a synopsis of forward castes: in Karnataka, there are the Goudas and Lingayats and in Punjab, the Jats, Khatris and the same castes in U.P and Bihar are prevalent. In Kerala, Nayars and Ezvas come under this group. In Gujarat there are Jains, Patels and Shahs, in Tamilnadu, Nayaks, Nadars, Mudaliars, Vellalar castes (Pillai, Nairs)) come under this group. In Maharashtra Naiks, Shindes (Sindhias), Patils, Choudharies, Dhurandhars, Ranes, and the non-Brahmin Deshpandes, etc., may also be regarded to belong to this category. Needless to say that the forward castes have been wealthier than the backward castes who rarely owned land and property but worked for the forward castes as share-croppers. The nobles of India were the Khatriyas and their adviser Brahmins who wielded the power, being the upper castes but some of their ilk fell into the forward castes losing their status of Nobility.

Since status of Caste underlines the class, as the castes become poorer in some regions they transition into backward castes or form sub-castes. Many sub-castes in Andhra Pradesh are poorer than the others within the same castes. A forward caste in one region can be backward in another, further complicating the problem. Thus Jats in Rajasthan are backward whereas in Punjab they become very forward. In Bihar Patels and Jats are backward castes. Several sub-castes of Naidus and Reddys in Andhra are poorer in one area and richer in other. So the poorer sub-castes insist on being classified as backward Castes sacrificing their pride for economic or reservation gains. Such a demand would not have existed except for benefits in reservations. Monetary benefits thus can help overcome the traditional pride.

Who are the backward castes? All the castes other than Dalits and the classified forward classes were classified as Backward (B.C) by the British. The 1931 census put them at 54 % of the Hindu population consisting of 3000 castes and about 400 in Andhra Pradesh alone, thus they form a majority of population of India. This classification acts as the "land mine" in solving the caste discrimination and caste inequity problem for an egalitarian "socialistic" government. However, it can also be the "gold mine" for the corrupt vote seeking politicians. Margaret Alva, the Secretary of the Congress Party was forced to resign for exposing and questioning the "selling" of the seats (nominations) for the congress candidates desiring to win the election to become the legislators or member of the Parliament. Many a selections of such candidates are on the basis of their caste identity if their caste had the local majority.

With 54% of Hindus claiming the backward caste status and the Brahmins at one end and Dalits at the other end as permanent minority, what is the fate of Hindu society in terms of future conflics? Is there any solution to escape from this state for the directly discriminated groups or for those discriminated in the reverse? Will they seek emigration, conversion, or some complex political alliances for economic survival and political security over the next few decades? When will the caste communalism end in India? Will the external threats and anticipated wars bring the Indians in general and Hindus in particular together as "one people" and consolidate their pan-Indian identity just like the history of the United States indicates? The consolidation of American national identity was facilitated by the two World Wars and subsequent military challenges. However, luckily for the U.S. its enemies were far away and the citizens pledged loyalty and allegiance to the US and its flag which was a duty expected of all citizens regardless of their ethnic background or national origins. Such is not the case in India. There were relatively few traitors and few supporters of the external enemies on the US territory with a solid informal homeland security. The readers should have a proper perspective on the Indian society as it currently operates and not draw a conclusion that these extremes are all anticipated in the very near future. The threat of uniting the backward castes, other backward castes, Dalits, and the discriminated or disenfranchised Brahmins identifying themsleves with lower castes to form a majority to win the elections against the Congress party and assume political power may beome a reality as witnessed by the success of BSP (Bahujan Samaj Party) Mayavathi of UP which is aspiring to be an all India political power. We shall examine these issues in the second part of the article.

See Part II for more intricacies as well as attempted and suggested solutions.

Comments to seshachalamd@gmail.com