The Asian Age, March 03, 2015
The problem in RSS’ Hinduism
by Kancha Ilaiah
Since my ancestors had no say in defining Mr Bhagwat and his ancestors’ religion as Hindu, I choose any religion that I think gives me access to God, dignity in divine realm and equality in that civil society. Does that make me anti-national?
US President Barack Obama, in his annual breakfast speech, where the world spiritual, social and political leaders congregated on February 5, said, “countries and civilisations would be torn asunder by religious tension triggered by people targeting other people simply due to their heritage and their belief”. While specifically referring to India he said, “Gandhi would have been shocked to see what is happening in India”.
Mohan Bhagwat, the sarsanghchalak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, has been repeatedly saying that Hindu unity has to be established and that the present conditions in the country are favourable for it. This, in essence, means that with a process of intimidation of minorities, Hindu unity should be achieved only when the Bharatiya Janata Party is in power in Delhi and in many states.
In order to establish a Hindu rashtra, Mr Bhagwat is talking in a new language. Of late, he has been saying that minor reforms of allowing dalits into Hindu temples, allowing them to draw water from the wells etc., should be taken up. But he never, ever talks about the basic reforms in Hindu religious structure where all, including the shudras, dalits and tribals, who are being defined as Hindu, must be treated as equals before Hindu Gods; equality in religious (Hindu theological) educational institutions, where priesthood training could be given to all castes — leave alone genders.
The question before the shudras, OBCs, dalits and tribals is whether they and the brahminic forces, represented by Mr Bhagwat, belong to one heritage?
What does a “common heritage” that Mr Obama referred to mean? If Mr Bhagwat represents the brahminical heritage, I represent a certain historical heritage. Do we have any common ground without undergoing a radical reform in our heritages?
I am a shudra by birth and I belong to this country, with roots of millennia of years tracing back to my ancestors. So does Mr Bhagwat. Did we at any point of time in history, share the heritage with that of the ancestors of Mr Bhagwat?
My personal name is Ilaiah, with a surname Kancha, and his personal name is Mohan, with a surname Bhagwat. My name came from a Telangana deity called Iloni Mallaiah whose temples have existed at three places in Telangana, perhaps for several centuries or millennia. My ancestors, the gods/goddesses they worshipped, had no Sanskritic linguistic, cultural or ritual heritage at any point of time in history.
His name, Mohan, has a Sanskritic background meaning lovable attraction. His surname suggests that his family name is “god” himself (Read: Bhagavat puranas or even books called Bhagavats in Sanskrit).
I am not an untouchable and have a historical occupation of cattle and sheep rearing. Perhaps from Indus Valley days to the present, my ancestors must have reared millions of sheep, goats, buffaloes, cows and bulls. I presume that
Mr Bhagwat’s ancestors must not have done that job even for a day. But the meat, milk and wool, which my family members may have produced through their hard labour, has been consumed by his family members.
His family members must have played a role in writing the vedas, upanishads and bhagavats. Perhaps that could be one reason why his family name is Bhagwat. Were my family members allowed to learn Sanskrit and read the books written by his ancestors? There is no evidence until my generation to suggest that my ancestors were allowed, because I was the first person to have started reading and writing in my family. There is no trace of evidence that his nationalist God Ram had anything to do in my family history.
I do not know when Mr Bhagwat’s ancestors stopped eating the meat of cattle and sheep or goat, but for millennia of years his ancestors drank the milk of buffaloes and cows, that my ancestors extracted through their hard labour. Now he is organising people to make them notional “One Hindu” but he never soiled his hands to feed cattle or produce food.
Thousands of our people laid down their life to protect the life of those meat and milk-producing animals. I do not know what sacrifices Mr Bhagwat’s ancestors made while writing books or reading and reciting of mantras? Not much I presume.
But in my ancestry there were people, who fought with bears, tigers and even lions to protect their cattle. They slept in the rains, walked thousands of miles to feed the cattle, generation after generation. Do they exist as great Indians in the books that Mr Bhagwat’s ancestors wrote? Having read them, I know they don’t.
His ancestors have not shared their knowledge of the vedas, upanishads or bhagavats with my ancestors. If they were gurus they did not teach anything to my ancestors. But my ancestors never refused to share with his ancestors if they asked — be it meat, milk, fruit, or anything else. Even though they did not give them anything, they were always obliged when they asked for dakshina. Whenever they stretched their feet, my ancestors touched them with their hands and forehead, not out of reverence but out of fear.
His ancestors never even touched the body of my ancestors. If by accident they happened to touch them, they bathed several times — even though we are not untouchables.
As against the argument that there is common heritage of religion between the shudras, OBCs, dalits and tribals,
Mr Bhagwat is saying that we all belong to the same heritage. Is this just and ethically valid? If there is a universal God over and above the Indian people, their idol Gods (including that of my ancestors), does that God accept this kind of relationship between people? How did the Hindu Gods accept it?
Thus we belong to two distinctly different heritages. My ancestors did not name their cultural heritage as a religion — Hindu or vedic or sanathan. But Mr Bhagwat’s ancestors’ cultural and spiritual practices are termed as Hindu, vedic or sanathan. To this day, we have not had any exchange of heritages. Now he heads the RSS. His organisation defines me as a Hindu, similarly my ancestors are also termed Hindu. His organisation tells me that I should worship cows, but not buffaloes, sheep or goats.
My ancestors never worshipped any one of the animals they fed, watered and sheltered. All domestic animals were equal for them. While living as unequals in society they at least treated the animals under their control as equals. God gave them that good will. But Mr Bhagwat’s family (now the Sangh Parivar) does not exercise such good will.
Since my ancestors had no say in defining Mr Bhagwat and his ancestors’ religion as Hindu, and since we never shared or exchanged our heritages, I choose any religion that I think gives me access to God, dignity in divine realm and equality in that civil society. Does that make me anti-national?
According to Mr Bhagwat his religion and cultural heritage are also mine now. Even if I accept this magnanimous offer, would I have rights equal to his in all spheres of life? His parivar will not guarantee that. But he also says his religion, culture and heritage are my ghar. Isn’t this strange? God alone should save
Mr Bhagwat’s logic. God alone can save my people from his skillful designs.
The writer is director, Centre for the Study of Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, Maulana Azad National Urdu University, Hyderabad
|
