Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism

[Guest guest]

Vedas, Hindu scriptures prohibit casteism

By O.P. Gupta

The writer is the Ambassador of India to Finland

 

Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the world and even in

India has been declining. The share of Hindus in total population of

India was 84.98 percent in the 1951 census, 82.7 percent in 1971,

82.6 percent in 1981 and 82.41 percent in 1991.

 

In the 2001 census report (table 24), it has been further revised

downwards to 82 per cent in 1991 census.

 

This decline warrants serious introspection and reappraisal of our

socio-religious norms. Whereas Islamic and Christian priests have

been working overtime to seek new converts so as to increase their

demographic weight, bulk of Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms

but, armed with Manusmriti have been functioning in such manner over

last one thousand that years reduces population of Hindus by making

it difficult for a sizeable chunk of Hindus (now called ST/SC/Dalits)

to let them remain Hindus with honour and dignity; and, by not

seeking new converts to Hinduism.

 

Concepts like castes by birth, upper/lower castes, untouchables and

dalits are expressly prohibited by Rigveda, Ramayana and Shrimad

Bhagwat Gita.

 

Protagonists of castes by birth cite Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of Rigveda

and slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim is totally

knocked down by other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and

examples set by Lord Rama.

 

There is no birth based caste in Rigveda is evident from simple fact

that names of none of Rigvedic rishis carry any present day caste

titles like Pandit, Sharma, Tripathi, Chaturvedi, Trivedi, Singh,

Gupta and Namboodari.

 

Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are three and only three supreme

religious scriptures of Hindus. Rigveda has revelations to 414

rishis. Rigveda was composed around 1500 BC but other school believes

it to be older than 5000 BC.

 

Rigveda does not mention cotton whereas the oldest cotton seeds found

in Afghanistan are carbon dated to 5000 BC.

 

All others (Brahmanas, Upnishads, Puranas, Sutras, Smrities) are just

commentaries, stories mixed with historical accounts and poets'

imaginations.

 

All writings in Sanskrit are not religious scriptures. Therefore,

these latter compositions must yield to supremacy of Vedas. It is not

a new assertion as these themselves acknowledge supremacy of Vedas.

For example, Manusmriti vide Sloka (II.6), states that Vedas are the

primary/first source of authority. So, it is logical that all such

slokas of Manusmriti which are violative of Veda stand rejected.

 

Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book "Hindu Law and the

Constitution" says that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti

(Vedas) and the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail.

 

 

Ramayana and Mahabharata were composed after Vedas. Shrimad Bhagwat

Gita is a part of Mahabharata. It is believed that Manusmriti was

composed during Kushan period, about 100 years after

Chankya/Kautilya. Arthur A. Macdonnel in his book "A History of

Sanskrit Literature" (1899 AD) estimates that Manusmriti in its

present form was composed near about 200 AD.

 

In his book, Macdonnel warns that the smritis are not on the same

footings as law books of other nations as these are works of private

individuals (Brahmins); these were written by Brahimins for benefit

of Brahinins whose caste pretentions these books consequently

exaggerate.

 

None of these books from Manusmriti onwards were approved by any

Dharam Sansad (religious congregation). Macdonnel advises to check

statements/claims made in smrities by outside sources.

 

Text of Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir

William Jones, an employee of the East India Company who introduced

it as the Law book of Hindus in British Indian Courts.

 

As devil is there in the details, let us look at English translations

of (X.90.11 & 12). HH Wilson translates "When they immolated Purusa,

into how many portions did they divide him? What was his mouth

called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called?

His mouth became the Brahmana, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs

became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet." Ralph T.H.

Griffith translates: "When they divided Purusa how many portions did

they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call

his thighs and feet?" The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms

Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra

was produced."

 

This context, this background that, division of body of Purusa into

four parts was done to kill/ immolate/sacrifice the Purusa has been

totally suppressed in Manusmriti.

 

In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti wrongly claims, that for growth of people

(lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra

from mouth, arms, thighs and feet. With a view to create hereditary

monopoly on easy money of dakshina, greedy priests centuries after

Vedas concocted that as Brahman was born from mouth of Purusa, he was

the superior most and as Sudra was born from feet which is impure

part of body he was impure and the inferior most.

 

Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi are sacred

(pavitra) and those below are impure (apivatra). There is no sanction

for such a hypothesis in Rigveda.

 

What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) was revealed is a very simple

common sense, that even the most powerful man like Purusa can be

immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are

separated.

 

If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body into pieces. This

is what followers of Manusmriti have been doing over centuries -

destroying/immolating Hinduism from within by dividing/separating

Hindus among different castes by birth, at fratricidal war with each

other, thus, reducing Hindu population.

 

By throwing Sudras out of villages, followers of Manu amputated feet

of Hinduism, thus, made Hinduism crippled. Will followers of

Manusmriti agree to get their own feet amputated on the same logic

that legs are impure parts of their bodies?

 

Another interpretation of (X.90.11 & 12) is creative i.e. emergence

of a powerful (virat) man from Yajna. Acharya Shri Ram Sharma of

Bareilly translates (in Hindi) "Virat purus kitne prakaroo se utpanna

huvey. Unka mukh Brahman, bhuja kshatriye, janghaye vaishya aur

charan sudra huye."

 

Acharya translates these on lines of creation not immolation, so,

body of Purus is not divided into four limbs.

 

By common sense, a virat Purus is one who is healthy and one is

healthy only if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are joined together

and work in perfect harmony with each other.

 

Whenever this harmony among different parts of body is

disturbed/destroyed, he becomes paralysed and sick. So, what Rishi

Narain is saying is that a Society will emerge as the most powerful

Society like the Virat Purus only if its intelligentia (educated

people i.e. Brahmans), Government (Rajnya), business community

(Vaishya) and professionals & workers (Sudra) are joined together and

work in as perfect harmony with each other as mouth, arms, thighs and

feet of any healthy person work.

 

These two richas, thus, emphasise total equality, perfect unity &

complementarity of all the four classes of people to make a Society

powerful.

 

In a healthy person, mouth does not claim to be superior to legs,

arms do not claim any superiority over legs and arms do not function

independently of head (Parkinsons's disease), as each part of a body

is composed of identically same materials and is functionally

dependent upon each other.

 

No part of body is inferior or superior to other part of body. Each

dependent on the other, each complementary to the other. Thus, Purus

Sukta commands harmony, unity and equality i.e. none of the four

classes is inferior or superior to other and each is dependent on the

other for its healthy survival.

 

But, just the opposite interpretation was created by greedy priests

and British Courts to divide and rule.

 

Those who say that as Sudra represent feet of Virat Purus, and, as

feet is impure so Sudras are impure should know that richa (X.90.14)

says that earth was born from same feet of Purusa. So, based on

(X.90.14) Sudras will be justified to claim the entire earth as

exclusively theirs.

 

There is no stipulation of high or low by birth in Rigveda. Many

rishis of Rigveda under current Manusmriti definition were not

Brahmins. There are at least ten Rigvedic richas showing that

profession was not hereditary.

 

In richas (V.23.1) and (V.23.2) Rishi Dyumna prays to Agni "Bestow

Agni, upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may

with glory subdue all men in battle" (HH Wilson).

 

In (IX.112.3) another rishi says "I am the singer, papa is the

physician." So, father of a Rigvedic rishi is a physician but in

Manusmriti a physician is a sudra.

 

HH Wilson translates (X.125.5) "I verily of myself declare this which

is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I render him

formidable, I make him a Brahma, a rishi or a sage." This richa

appears in Atharveda (IV.30.03) also.

 

So in Rigveda profession is not hereditary but by training. In

(X.98.7) Devapi, is functioning as a purohit to his own brother King

Shantanu.

 

Some assert that Arayns were/are fair complexioned people and sudras

are dark skinned. They also claim that four varnas were based on

colours of skin. This is not true as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are

always depicted in coloured pictures as dark complexioned (shyama

varna). Rishi Kanva who richly contributed to Rigveda was himself a

dark skinned person vide RV (X.31.11).

 

Higher caste/lower caste and untouchability are in direct

contradiction to 12 other richas of Vedas viz. RV (VIII.93.13), RV

(X.191), Atharveda III.30 and VII.54 (or VII.52) and Yujurveda

(26.02) and (36.18). Unity in diversity is famous Indian motto.

 

Cows of different colours like black, red and spotted ones give white

milk (RV VIII.93.13) is a metaphor used in Vedas for diversity

yielding to unity.

 

HH Wilson translates (X.191.2): "Meet together, talk together, let

your minds apprehend alike: in like manner as the ancient gods

concurring accepted their portion of the sacrifice." RV

(X.191.3) "Common be the prayer of these (assembled worshippers),

common be the acquirement, common the purpose, associated be the

desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer for you a common

oblation." RV (X.191.4) "Common (worshippers), be your intention;

common be (the wishes of) your heart; common be your thoughts, so

that there may be thorough union among you."

 

W.D. Whitney & K.L. Joshi translate Atharveda (III.30.1) "like-

heartedness, like mindedness, non-hostility do I make for you; do you

show affection the one towards the other, as the inviolable (cow)

towards her calf when born." (III.30.5): "Having superior intentful,

be you not divided, accomplishing together, moving on with joint

labour come hither speaking what is agreeable one to another, I make

you united, like minded." (III.30.6): "Your drinking saloon be the

same, in common your share of food, in the same harness do I join you

together; worship you Agni united, like spokes about a navel."

(III.30.7): "Untied, like minded I make you, of one bunch, all of

you, by (my conciliation; (be) like the gods defending amrita; late

and early be well-willing yours."

 

Supporters of casteism oftenly quote slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of

Gita to support four castes by birth. In sloka (IV.13) Lord Krishna

says: "Chaturvarnyma mayaa sristam gunkarma vibhagsah" i.e. four

orders of society created by Me according to their Guna

(qualities/behaviour) and Karma (profession/work/efforts).

 

Lord Krishna does not say guna and karma of previous life. In

(XVIII.41) Lord Krishna says "Brahmana Kshatriya visham sudranam cha

paramtapa, karmani pravibhaktani svabhavaprabhavaigunaih." It means

people have been grouped into four classes according to their present

life karma (profession/work) and svabhava (behaviour).

 

Had this division been based on birth, Lord Krishna would have

naturally used "Janmani pravibhaktani" in (XVIII.41).

 

In (X.20) Lord Krishna says "ahamatama gudakesa sarvabhutaa

sayasthitah" i.e. "Arjuna! I am the universal self seated in the

hearts of all beings." Here, Lord neither excludes sudra from "all

beings" nor excludes Himself from being in hearts of sudra.

 

In (XVIII.61) Lord says "eshwarah sarvabhutaanaam hraddesearjuna

tisthati" i.e. Arjuna! God abides in the heart of all living beings."

Again, sudras are not excluded.

 

In (XIV.4) Lord Krishna says "of all embodied beings Arjuna, prakrti

or nature is the conceiving Mother, while I am the seed giving

Father." Thus, Lord Krishna says that he is as much Father of sudras

as he is Father of any other Hindu.

 

In (XVI.18) Lord Krishna says: "Given over to egotism, brute force,

arrogance, etc. they hate Me dwelling in their own bodies as well as

those of others."

 

Thus, Lord Krishna instructs that a Hindu must not hate bodies of

others Hindus as He is there in bodies of all so Gita prohibits

untouchability.

 

In (XVI.19) Lord curses Manu supporters: "These haters, sinful, cruel

and vilest among men, I cast (them) again and again into demonical

yonies (wombs)." In (XVI.20) Lord again curses Manu

supporters: "Failing to reach Me, Arjuna, these stupid souls are born

life after life in demoniac wombs (asura yoni) and then verily sink

down to a still lower plane." In (XVIII.71) and (V.18) Lord again

instructs equality of all Hindus.

 

Shrimad Valmiki Ramayan (1.1.98 to 100) also says whosoever including

sudra reads it will achieve greatness and get rid of all sins. Thus,

Vedas, Ramayana and Gita confer authority on sudras to possess and

read all these.

 

In Ramayan, Lord Rama has set following two lessons for all Hindus

which we witness every year in Ramlilas but never follow in our

practical lives.

 

Ravana was a grandson of risi Pulatsya. He was an expert on Vedas

too. So, he was a Brahimin by birth under Manu definition as well as

a Brahimin (educated) by qualification (veda-gyata) but he and most

of his family members were killed by Lord Rama for their wrong

doings. So, the first lesson of Ramayana is that everyone is equal

before law.

 

Lord Rama visited Shabri, called her a mother (mata); ate food from

her hands and washed feet of Nisadraj. Lord Rama lived for years

among vanvasi (tribals). So the second lesson of Ramayana is that a

true Rambhakta should never discriminate against SC/ST/Dalit Hindus,

should never hesitate to visit and dine with them. Mahatma Gandhi

always followed both these two lessons of Ramayana.

 

Thus, the central command of the 14 harmony richas and 10 profession

not hereditary richas of Vedas is that all Hindus are totally equal

by birth, of one bunch, share same water and food, worship together

united in same temple, common are prayers, common purpose, common

thoughts, united like spokes of a wheel, common oblation and friendly

towards each others.

 

One becomes a warrior (Rajnya), Brahman (educated ones) or rishi, not

by birth but by his efforts/training (karma) vide RV (X.125.5). No

one is superior and no one is inferior by birth.

 

[The writer is the Ambassador of India to Finland and above are his

personal views.]