|
|
|
 |
Following quotes of Sant Kabir that I found in the article "Against religious dogmatism" by K. Satchidanandan in Frontline, Vol. 32, Issue # 18, September 05-18, 2015 express what the words that follow fail to do plainly.
"The hungry cannot be devout
please take back this rosary...
I want half seer of cereal
to fill the belly twice a day
I want a cot to sleep in
be my pillow a wooden frame...
"
"Who are thou, the Brahmin? Whose am I the Soodra, whose blood am I? Whose milk art thou? Kabir says, who reflects on 'Brahma', he by me is called a 'Brahmin"; "There is impurity in water, impurity in earth. There is impurity at the time of birth, there is impurity in the hour of death, there is impurity in destruction."
"The beads are of wood, the gods of stone, the Ganga and Yamuna are water. Rama and Krishna are dead. The four Vedas are fictions, and, if by immersion in the water salvation can be found, the frogs bathe continually. As the frogs, so are these men: again and again they fall into the womb. Kabir said, the sacrificial fires may or may not bring mukti, but the smoke that they raise certainly blinds vision."
This is an extract from an excruciatingly long correspondence with a friend (who shall go by the label 'Y' henceforth). The correspondence lasted for a total of 2 days (July 25th and 26th, 2014) occupying a full 14 printed pages in my filings. It started with an innocent question on what books to read from Y's side. This thread spawned 2 to 3 others threads.
The response of KM can be charged with being pretentious and polemical. There is no counter-defence to that charge. Both hold.
Y
I heard at one point that:
The poverty that exists in India would have led to mayhem if not the way the caste structure and philosophical wisdom has been laid down by hinduism in our society. Here people are made to believe that in whatever status one is born is due to fate and is based on his/her past karma. Moreover, the evils acts of people demonstrated by people are sometimes expelled from people's mind on the ground that "usko to apne karma ka phaal bhugat na padega".
KM
Would you accept this argument if you were born in an 'untouchable' community that would be forced to pledge their children and possibly their wife as permanent servants to a landlord and forced to live on the outskirts of a village and not have any right to use public spaces and services? Or worse, if you were an 'adivasi' and suddenly found Vedanta destroying your only only sources of livelihood and the water sources that as far as the living memory of your community concerned was always presumed to be yours and held sacred?
Always remember: who is asking the question and who is answering matters more than the content of the question or the answer. Every argument that seems logical and rational is not necessarily true. And even if it is true, not necessarily beneficial. If it is true and beneficial, it may not be appropriate to the moment. Finding a thought based on reason that is true, universally beneficial (to everyone without exception) and appropriate to the moment is actually the art of religion.
Virtue without intelligence is infertile and intelligence without virtue is the most dangerous weapon known to man. I do not know if cosmic balance exists or not, but if all of us can devote ourselves to finding the balance between virtue and intelligence we would have discovered the true religious way.
As to the paragraph in your email: I feel it is the outcome of a priviledged-caste hindu, rationalising his stand. ... Of course, I do not blame them because this argument that they rely on is temptingly logical but in fact is not true. To find the right answer you would need to study the history of the Indian sub-continent in a lot of detail. I would recommend the name of R.S. Sharma, especially his books related to origin of caste.
For me, underlying the notion of caste or class or any kind of identity is a sense of differentiation and discrimination. This differentiation in case of caste is based on notion of superiority and purity. There is no natural basis for such a differentiation. Lot of people who favour caste say that caste is useful because it is a division of labour. But division of labour has existed in all cultures the world over since time immeorial. A division of labour also exists between a husband and wife at home. But as Ambedkar said, caste is not division of labour. It is a division of labourers.
Does a division of labour between husband and wife imply a division between husband and wife? If such a division would exist what would it mean? That a husband would think he is superior to his wife or vice-versa? What is the implication of this? That given the way human mind works once it accepts the notion of superiority it would give itself the right to impose itself on the other person that it feels is inferior. It could work in subtle ways (through unreasonable sexual demands), or in a gross way by mistreatment bordering on treating your spouse as a domestic servant.
All the social reformers of the 18th and 19th century were fighting against such evils. Where did they (these evils) spring from? A culture that sanctioned the notion of superiority and purity. Why did Hitler feel it is right to kill the Jews? Because of a twisted logic that Jews were expendable because they are evil and inferior. Why did the Christians wage the holy war on the Muslims in the middle part of the Medieval age? Because they thought that their religion was superior to that of the Muslims? Why did the Muslims expand their territorial sovereignty? Because they believed that their religion and culture needs to be spread to all corners because it is inherently better than those of the infidels? And so on. Mixed with such sentiments are sentiments of control of natural resources (imperialism), nationalism and pure hunger for power (which all the emperors of the past displayed. For example, the Napoleonic Wars.)
Where is the root of all this? It arises from a notion that there is a difference between I and the world. Secondly, what I am, is, in general, better than the world. Caste is an ingenious framework under which this sentiment of 'better' has been institutionalised, solidified and caged. If caste was based solely on economic division of labour and where every labour was paid equally and given equal respect and status in society I would have no issues. After all, everyone has different abilities and each man to his own. Provided such a system did not lead to inequality of wealth. But such a system does not exist and cannot exist because division of labour is an excuse.
The real underlying, possibly unconscious, reason is the acceptance of the fact that somethings are superior to others. Look at ourselves. Does an act of graduating from IIMC imply that we should we paid salaries in lakhs while the guy who sweeps the streets or your domestic maid who works much harder than you and me be paid less? Economics will say because society values one form of labour over another that this (practice) exists. But this is a restatement of facts. Can economics answer why does society value one form over another? I find it very hard to accept the argument that somehow my higher education implies that I contribute greater to society. In fact I would argue otherwise: the higher education affords me a life of comfort, a life of idleness and a life of laziness.
If I was really contributing to society I would not be sitting here writing an email. I do so because I have ample time. While my maid servant does not. Not because she is stupid or cannot learn. And am I willing to trade my vocation for cleaning someone's house? With a straight face I can say no today. And why? Is it because I am lazy? Is it because I do not have the physical stamina? Is it because I am afraid of losing my status in society? Is it because my parents or wife will be ashamed? Is it because I am used to a lifestyle that I cannot sustain? Is it all of these?
And if you believe in the caste system, it (the belief in caste) will add one more line to the above list: because it is your dharma not to sweep floors. Leave it to those lower down in the pecking order to do that.
I can buy all arguments but not the last one. That last one is plain obnoxious to my sense of being a human. The rest of the arguments, if I have the willpower, I can confront and accept and even change myself. But if someone says you have to sweep floors and you don't have to because it is your dharma it does not even leave a fighting chance. It just erodes whatever intelligence and potential nature has gifted the human body. This applies to everyone who adheres to this kind of specious argumentation.
| |
|