The Madras Presidency in 1940’s and the then Affairs

By | on October 1, 2020 | 0 Comment

Thus Spake Ambedkar

The non-Brahmins, said Mr. E.V. Ramasamy Naickar, constitute 70 per cent of the population of the Madras Presidency, the Brahmins only three per cent yet six out of ten posts those of ministers, President of the Council and Speaker of the Assembly, were given to Brahmins, Over fifty per cent of the Gazetted posts are held by Brahmins, Sixty per cent of the higher non-Gazetted posts are held by Brahmins. Mr. Naickar quoted chapter and verse to prove that the Brahmins had increased instead of decreasing during the Congress regime.

As soon as the Congress came into power 1937, it dissolved the School Committees which contained a majority of non-Brahmins and appointed fresh school committees with Brahmins in majority.

It manipulated and maneuvered District Board elections, postponed them or hastened them as it suited their purpose of getting a majority of Brahmins returned. It disqualified hundreds of voters on the slightest pretext and entire villages were thus deprived of the right to the vote. It introduced the literacy qualification for franchise and thus—because 90 per cent of the Brahmins are literate and 93 per cent of the Non-Brahmins illiterate—increased the voting strength of the Brahmins and decreased that of the non-Brahmins.

2,000 Schools closed?

And in order that education might be confined to Brahmins only, declared the Speaker, the Government completely and entirely closed down as many as 2,200 village schools on the plea that Government had no money for maintaining them.

While they had no money for these schools, twelve lakhs of rupees were granted for starting a Brahminical College for the study of Vedas, Puranas, etc., meant exclusively for the Brahmins in the beginning and employed some forty to fifty men, all Brahmins on salaries ranging from Rs. 200 to 600.

Ninety per cent of the medical men are Brahmins, 90 per cent of the lawyers Brahmins. Under Government rules non-Brahmins would have to get representations in Government’s legal appointments. Government issued a most extraordinary and outrageous order leaving it to the various district court bars to elect public prosecutors. And since these bars are dominated by Brahmins all the police and public prosecutors except one were Brahmins.

Government Ban on Goldsmiths

Brahminism in Madras, said Mr. Naickar, had gone mad to such an extent that Government actually issued an order forbidding the goldsmiths of the province who aspired to be Brahmins from describing themselves so and using Brahmin surnames. The order further instructed district and other courts and revenue offices that no communications received from goldsmiths with Brahmin surnames should be registered, acknowledged or taken cognisance of. It was rescinded only after a terrific campaign.

The Temple Entry Bill was another eye-wash. It did not vest the right of entry of the Harijans. It left the decision to temple authorities who were to act according to “public opinion.” Whether public opinion was in favour or against was to be decided by the temple authorities themselves without any sort of machinery for assessing the “public opinion.”

In the nation-building departments the Government had a shameful record. It closed down schools… two thousand of them cut down grants for scholarships for non-Brahmins. Depressed Classes and Muslims, and, in fact, did everything to turn the masses into hewers of wood and drawers of water to be exploited and ruled over by the all-wise Brahmin.

The press was controlled by the Brahmins so that it was impossible to get non-Brahmin grievances redressed, and their activities reported.

The Congress promised everything to everybody. During its election campaign there is no falsehoods too mean to be indulged in, no promise too hypocritical. Landlords were told that all land revenue would be abolished, tenants were told that all rents would go by the board, merchants were promised goods free of duty, famine stricken areas were assured of rain through the favour of Gandhiji who was in direct communication with Varuna, God of Rain, districts stricken with epidemic were given hopes of escape from the calamity if they voted Congress……

* GATHERING WIND TO “SMASH CONGRESS”

Justicite Leader to Sail in same Boat with Jinnah and Ambedkar

Plans for the formation of an anti-Congress front are being vigorously canvassed by Mr. E. V. Ramaswami Naicker, leader of the Justice Party in Madras who has been in Bombay for the last five days.

Activating New Views

To a city which has recently been regaled with stories of “atrocities” committed by the Congress against Muslims, Mr. Naicker is trying to infuse the virus of a disease which had been troubling Madras for some time–Brahmanophobia but from which this province has been free to a considerable extent.

Mr. Naicker is the leader of the Justice Party of Madras which counted among its leading lights men such as Sir Shanmukham Chetty, the present Dewan of Cochin, Sir A. Ramaswami Mudaliar, Commerce Member to the Government of India, Sir K. V. Reddi, who was for some time the Acting Governor of Madras and Premier of the interim Cabinet and the Raja of Bobbili. In the 1937 elections the Justice Party was swept off the field by the people, an overwhelming majority of whom are non-Brahmins, but who were sick of the antics of the party. With the eclipse of the party the big leaders gave up leadership of the party and passed on to more truthful pastures. This has brought up Mr. Naicker to the leadership of Justicites.

Out To “Smash Congress”

 Mr. Naicker used the anti-Hindi agitation in Madras to come into limelight and now that the Congress Ministry is out of power, he is trying to use the opportunity to resuscitate the Justice party and “Smash the Congress.” And in this task, he is trying to seek the help of Mr. M. A. Jinnah and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar.

Gathering Wind

Mr. Naicker had lengthy talks with Mr. M. A. Jinnah and Dr. Ambedkar in the course of which he is understood to have narrated to them, with the help of an interpreter, the alleged acts of oppression against the non-Brahmins. He is also understood to have explained that theirs was not a minority question in Madras. The non-Brahmins who formed about 97 per cent of the population were being subjected to the tyranny of the small Brahmin minority which was completely controlling the Congress policy in the province. Since the Muslim League and the Depressed Classes were also fighting against the same organisation, he suggested that they should make common cause.

Mr. Naicker’s disapproval of the Constituent Assembly plan is understood to have evoked the sympathy and support of the League leader.

LET US COME TO TERMS

*Dr. Ambedkar’s Plea to Mr. Gandhi

Madras, September 24

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, leader of the All-India Scheduled Castes Federation addressed a large gathering this evening for over 100 minutes, strongly defending the Viceroy’s declaration of the community’s position in the national life of India and defining the attitude of the community to the future.

He recalled many events during the Round Table Conferences, in 1930 and the role he had played therein. He remarked: “If India had been let down in the Round Table Conference, it was not by the Scheduled Castes: it was let down by Mr. Gandhi, Mr. Sastri and others”.

Drawing the analogy of Ireland, Dr. Ambedkar wanted to tell his Hindu brethren that he had a thousand excuses to adopt the attitude that Sir Edward Carson had adopted, and say “Damn your safeguards”. They had realised the interests of the country as a whole and promised to support any demand for home rule, with only a small condition attached to it, namely, reasonable safeguard for them.

“I would like to ask Mr. Sastri and Mr. Gandhi whether our attitude is not patriotic, noble-minded and generous. How much we are forgetting the Brahmanic rule under which we have been suffering for the last 2,000 years in the hope that we are getting safeguards and that we may, with the help of other generous elements in country, be able to build up a system under which not only this country will grow to the fullest nationhood but we shall grow to the full manhood?” he said.

“I would tell my Hindu brethren they had better revise the mentality, and they have to take into account the sacrifices we are prepared to make. Let us come to terms and settle this question.”

Dr. Ambedkar then referred to the Gandhi-Jinnah talks and said that the communal problem was not merely a problem between Hindus and Muslims, but it involved Scheduled Castes, Christians and other minorities as well. In a matter of such nature, he felt the wisest and safest course was for all representatives of different minorities to get together and arrive at some agreement. It appeared to him that any deal between two men would be to rob the third man.

If Mr. Gandhi gave Mr. Jinnah something more than he was entitled to that something would, he was afraid, come out of his (Ambedkar’s) share.

It is understood that Dr. Ambedkar and Mr. E. V. Ramasami Naicker, leader of the Dravidan Federation, had a long discussion on Sunday over the question of Dravidastan, the resolutions passed at the Salem Conference of the Federation and ‘self-respect movement in the province’.—Associated Press.

Courtesy: Source Material on Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and The Movement of Untouchables, published by the Publication Division, Government of Maharashtra

- the modern restaurant

Stigma as ‘Sudras’

By | on November 1, 2020 | 0 Comment

Periyar Speaks

On July 27, 1969, Thanthai Periyar headed a rationalist conference at Chidambaram in Tamil Nadu. The central idea of his speech was that we would continue to be degraded as ‘Sudras’ as long as fanatics blame our people for making the idols in temples impure by our touch. The content of this speech is in brief as follows:

Dear comrades,

A rationalist conference is being held at this moment. We must infer from this that it is our duty to propagate rationalist views and eradicate irrational thoughts and practices.

Belief in god, religion, scriptures and ancient mythologies as well as fabricated history are against rationalism. They are detrimental to our society. They keep us degraded at all times and hinder our knowledge. We remain gullible and superstitious by their impact. They aggravate our ignorance. We are striving to eradicate this degradation and our aim is to draw our people out of the darkness of ignorance.

Long ago people used to behave like barbarians. They attempted to destroy things useful for humankind. They were incestuous and ignorant of the meaning and value of life. We are propagating to eradicate gods, religion and ancient scriptures fabricated by those people.

We should have in-fact eradicated all these long ago. We do not aim at destroying anything which came into vogue when we were all fully civilised. We look back at the period prior to that when barbaric people designed gods, scriptures and myths. No one with an iota of sense would oppose our protest. Barbarians who generated all those falsehood have made their heirs adhere to them irrationally. Their descendants are following them selfishly and safeguarding them with a malicious ulterior motive. This necessitates our protest. This is the only factor behind our provocation. People who were incestuous, soaked in barbarism are being considered upper caste people while people who led a clean life adhering to the codes of morality are degraded as low caste people. Why should this deplorable condition continue? Great thinkers, sages and saints who lived in this country had never bothered about the disgraceful life of the repressed people.

Temples are not required by our country because none of the gods seems to have been perfect and venerable. None of their spouses seems to have been chaste or faithful. Why should man accept god and religion? If he accepts them, he should be prepared to tolerate his wife’s extra-marital affairs. No sensible person would stoop to such an unabashed level of existence, even if he admits accepting god and religion. People who had been promoting such filth in society have all been hailed as great men. Senseless simpletons earned name and fame. All the meaningless practices born of stupidity were dumped on our people. We must mercilessly abolish the entire filth thrust on us by fanatics. We rationalists must strive to eradicate them, at any cost.

Every religion is soaked in superstition. All religious leaders are rogues. They babble that religion is based on Vedas. When were Vedas framed? Who framed them? There is no evidence for this. We are told that men who designed Vedas and religions were born of animals. They expect us to accept and believe this without raising any question. We are compelled to tolerate their stupidity. If we adopt Christianity, we must also accept his abnormal birth. Thus, every religion is backed by idiotic explanations. None of the religions makes any sense.

The so-called epics, Mahabharat and Ramayana talk about men who lived for sixty long years and that they had sixty wives. To accept these fables is to accept the idiocy and superstitious concepts in them. Unless a man accepts those idiotic narrations, he cannot accept Rama as  god. It is amazing why these gods pushed their wives into adultery. Our objective is to eradicate all such obnoxious fables which takes us for a ride. Our mission is to completely annihilate superstition.

These fanatics use god, religion and scriptures to hood-wink us but they themselves violate them and lead a hypocritical life. They do not really believe in them. These pretentious brahmins have come up in life without toiling. They hardly work but flourish. We work hard but exist as incorrigible fools, leading a deplorable life. Can we ever keep all our doors open and go to bed for the convenience of thieves? Think for yourself whether that would make any sense. Tolerating senseless concepts is also paving way for the prosperity of others. I urge you all to think deeply over this.

We must dare to abolish stupidity and curb wickedness around us. Selfish people hood-wink us for their own survival, without any hesitation. Therefore, there is nothing wrong if we strive to abolish our disgrace in society. We are in no way inferior to brahmins. Similarly none of the brahmins is superior to us in any way!

If a brahmin has the right to go near an idol in a temple why should we be denied the same right? What ill-effect would our proximity to the idols cause? If they are really gods, why should there be such a discrimination? Why should temples have large doors to protect gods? An idol of god under a tree is sometimes licked by a dog but nobody bothers. When the same idol is kept inside a temple, we are blamed for making it impure by our proximity and touch. Is there any justice in this accusation?

The idols under trees are also worshipped alike with rituals followed in temples. No one blames a man for making those idols impure by his touch. Nor does anyone say that those idols have become powerless when dogs licked them.

Brahmins have prevented our touching the idols only for their own survival and for no other reason. We thought our people would realise facts and barge into temples and also touch the idols treating it as a challenge, but so far the awareness is not there in them. They continue to exist as insensitive human beings. Hence, we must take steps to awaken such people. It is our mission to make our people understand their deplorable condition.

People who invented and spread the belief in god had never ever said that our touch would make god impure. It is only a person who ekes out a living and survives to flourish gradually, who blames us for causing impurity. Such malicious people keep shrieking that the idols in temples should not be touched by ‘Sudras’.

As long as temples exist and as long as it is told that our entry would make them impure – the stigma of ‘shudras’ would also be on us as an irremovable disgrace. Gullible people exist as concubines of brahmins. They shamelessly stay outside temples and worship. We have to shun and ignore such insensitive people who willingly endure humiliation.

We never agitate for our survival. We fight for the welfare of society, for the sake of every common man. Our protests are for our honour and self-respect. Hence, we should ignore insensitive fools and carry on with our noble task. This cannot be accomplished unless we prepare ourselves and be ready to ignite the spark. I am planning to hold shortly an agitation with this purpose. In order to motivate you for participation we conduct such conferences and offer educative explanations. Our aim is to make you ready for collective protests. The objective of this conference is to inspire you all and make you join me when I launch that protest shortly.

I was scared of obstacles to the D.M.K. party. I thought some unpleasant occurrences could ruin the party. But I have a sigh of relief to see them arriving at an amicable decision in the election of the party president. Kalaignar Karunanidhi has been unanimously elected president of their party, following his contest. Navalar Nedunchezhian has also been elected the general secretary of D.M.K. – Now, Karunanidhi heads both, the party as well as the rule of the State. My fear too has vanished.

When Anna (C.N. Annadurai) founded the D.M.K. party, he wanted me to be its president. He declared that I was its president and added that he would wait for me. He announced that the chair of the president would remain vacant until I assumed the post. He went ahead with party activities quite magnanimously functioning as its general secretary. That chair of the president has been occupied only now. I commend Kalaignar Karunanidhi and Navalar Nedunchezhian who conveyed their consent to hold election and bring out this situation amicably. Now I believe that nothing can harm this party. I am greatly relieved. Our lives and our future depend on their rule. The Tamil people can derive benefits only through them. None can help our people reap numerous benefits other than these well wishers.

As long as our policies are supported, we shall be faithful to the rulers headed by their party and render our support to them in return. We assure our patronage to them. But we shall never be mute spectators if anyone imperils our policies and principles. We must extend our wholehearted support to this rule which cares for the welfare of our society. To the best possible extent, we should protect this government from their rivals and prevent every single harm.

God has been designed by senseless people. God is an outcome of sheer stupidity. Selfish people wanted smartly to eke out a living and survive. Hence, religions were formed. God and religion are not meant for people whose minds operate on a higher level of intellect. Realising this truth, people should avoid visiting temples. None shall apply any sort of ash on their forehead. Women must not be allowed to visit temples. Religious festivities and events must not be held. I urge you all to strictly follow this.

The root causes of the deplorable condition of our country are god and religion. Christian nations could progress not because of the Christianity. When Christianity was severely criticised and when the vulgarity and obnoxious concepts embedded in that religion were exposed, people acquired an awareness. They understood the undesirable and unacceptable segments of that religion and were subsequently enlightened. They perform several miracles and amazing feats as an outcome of their intellect and realisation. Similarly our people should approach everything rationally, shed their ignorance and achieve advancement in life. This is my sincere appeal to all my comrades who have assembled here.

Courtesy: ‘Viduthalai’

Translated by M.R. Manohar

- the modern rationalist

James Randi

“I just want people to question, question, question” James Randi, the pioneer of skeptical movement passed away!

By | on November 1, 2020 | 0 Comment

featured

James Randi, an inveterate skeptic and challenger of paranormal power, passed away on 20th October 2020 in USA at the age, 92. He lived as an internationally acclaimed magician and escape artist. He used to tell himself, “I am an explainer. I’m certainly not trying to do magic. But I’m obsessed with exposing those who use it fraudulently”. His contention on magic is that it is based solely on earthly sleight of hand and visual trickery. Nothing divine or supernatural prevails in it. He was always careful to describe himself as an investigator, not a debunker and insisted he was always open to the possibility of super natural phenomenon but simply found no evidence of it after decades of research. By challenging along with the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal he offered a payout ranging up to $ 1 million to anyone who could demonstrate a supernatural or paranormal phenomena under mutually agreed, scientifically controlled conditions. Randi said while there were many takers, none of them earned a cent.

At a public healing session led by televangelist Peter Popoff in Detroit in 1955, Randi sent in a man disguised as a woman, whom Popoff promptly cured of ‘uterine cancer’.

Randi was condemned as an emissary of the devil, receiving hate mail and threats veiled in biblical references. He was frequently sued for defamation and loss of income by those he pursued, but he claimed he never paid a dime in damage.

Randi toured the world extensively, wowing through with his standard magic shows but also challenging claims of paranormal and other inexplicable phenomena, from household poltergeists and Ouija boards to flying saucers and reports of ships and planes lost in Bermuda Triangle. All he found were based on exaggerated stories, media hope or physical manipulation.

As a pioneer of skeptical movement, James Randi has contributed a lot for the cause of humankind nurturing rationalist outlook and to act accordingly.

As a rationalist movement, Dravidar Kazhagam pays respect to the great warrior who fought against the so-called supernatural and paranormal deeds that attempt to keep the humankind stagnant both in thought and action.

Salute to James Randi!

K.Veeramani
President Dravidar Kazhgam
Chennai, India
25th October 2020

Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar did burn the Manusmriti!

By | on December 1, 2020 | 0 Comment

Thus Spake Ambedkar

This story was first published on January 26, 2016 (Towards Equality:  Why did Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar publicly burn the Manusmriti on December 25, 1927). We are re-publishing it.

Manusmriti Burning Day

On December 25, 1927, huge strides were made in the movement for self-dignity of Dalits. Under the leadership of Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar, a small town/village, Mahad in Konkan, the coastal region of Maharashtra, made history.

Manusmriti Burning Day, the day that the text of caste Hindus epitomizing hegemony, indignity and cruelty to Dalits and mlecchas (that included women) was publicly burned in a specially constructed symbolic funeral pyre before Dr Ambedkar and thousands of volunteers gathered to protest and agitate.

The Mahad satyagraha had been organised so that Dalits could drink from the Mahad (Chavadar) water tank, a public water source open to all. A previous legal notification of the Collectorate authorized free access to all.

Despite the existence of this order, caste hegemony and oppression had not created conditions for access to this facility for the oppressed. On the eve of the protest, caste Brahmins had obtained a stay order from a local court against untouchables accessing water from the tank!

Pressure of an unimaginable kind was put by caste Hindus to somehow abort the protest. This included tightening access to any public ground for the proposed meeting. Finally, a local gentleman Mr. Fattekhan, who happened to be a Muslim, gave his private land for the protest, extending solidarity with the struggle. Arrangements for food and water as also other supplies had to be made meticulously by the organisers facing a revolt in the village. A pledge of sorts had to be taken by the volunteers who participated in the protest. This pledge vowed the following:

I do not believe on Chaturvarna based on birth.

I do not believe in caste distinctions.

I believe that untouchability is an anathema to Hinduism and I will honestly try my best to completely destroy it.

I will not follow any restrictions about food and drink among at least all Hindus.

I believe that untouchables must have equal rights to access to temples, water sources, schools and other amenities.

The arrival of Dr. Ambedkar to the site of the protest was cloaked in high drama, faced with the possibilities of all kinds of sabotage from other sections of society. He came from Bombay on the boat “Padmavati” via Dasgaon port, instead of Dharamtar (the road journey), despite the longer distance. This was a well-planned strategy, because, in the event of boycott by bus owners, the leaders could walk down five miles to Mahad.

In front of the pandal where Dr Ambedkar made his address, the “vedi” (pyre) was created beforehand to burn the Manusmruti. Six people had been labouring for two days to prepare it. A pit six inches deep and one and half foot square was dug in, and filled with sandalwood pieces.

On its four corners, poles were erected, bearing banners on three sides. The banners said,

1. “Manusmruti chi dahanbhumi”, i.e. Crematorium for Manusmruti.
2. Destroy Untouchability
3. Bury Brahmanism.

It was on December 25, 1927, in the late evening, at the conference, that the resolution to burn the Manusmruti was moved by Brahmin associate of Ambedkar, Gangadhar Neelkanth Sahastrabuddhe and was seconded by PN Rajabhoj, an untouchable leader. Thereafter, the book Manusmruti was kept on this pyre and burned. The Brahmin associate of Ambedkar, Gangadhar Nilkanth Sahastrabuddhe and five six other Dalit sadhus completed the task. At the pandal, the only photo placed was that of Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. This has been interpreted to mean that, at this stage the Dalit leadership, including Dr. Ambedkar had yet to be disillusioned with Gandhi.

In his presidential speech Ambedkar said that the aim of the movement was not only to gain access to the water or the temple or to remove the barriers to commensality; the aim was to break down the varna system which supported inequality in society. He then told his audience about the French Revolution, and explained the main points of the Charter of Human Rights enunciated by the French Revolutionary Council. He pointed out the danger of seeking temporary and inadequate solutions by relating how the rebellion of the plebians of Rome against the patricians failed, primarily because the plebians sought only to gain a tribune of their choice instead of seeking to abolish the system dividing society into patricians and plebians.

In the February 3, 1928 issue of the Bahishkrit Bharat (his own newspaper) he explained the action saying that his reading of the Manusmriti had convinced him that it did not even remotely support the idea of social equality.

The root of untouchabilty lies in prohibition of inter-caste marriages, that we have to break, said Ambedkar in that historic speech. He appealed to higher varnas to let this “Social Revolution” take place peacefully, discard the sastras, and accept the principle of justice, and he assured them peace from our side. Four resolutions were passed and a Declaration of Equality was pronounced. After this, the copy of the Manusmruti was burned.

One sees here a definite broadening of the goal of the movement. In terms of the ultimate goal of equality and of the eradication of the varna system, the immediate programme of drinking water from the Mahad water reservoir was a symbolic protest, to herald the onset of a continuing struggle for dignity.

The other crucial points of Dr. Ambedkar’s speech were:

“…So long as the varna system exists the superior status of the Brahmans is ensured….Brahmans do not have the same love of their country that the Samurai of Japan had. Hence one cannot expect them to give up their special social privileges as the Samurai did in the interest of social equality and national unity of Japan. We cannot expect this of the non-Brahman class either. The non-Brahman classes like the Marathas and others are an intermediate category between those who hold the reins of power and those who are powerless. Those who wield power can occasionally be generous and even self-sacrificing. Those who are powerless tend to be idealistic and principled because even to serve their own interest they have to aim at a social revolution. The non-Brahman class comes in between; it can neither be generous nor committed to any principles. Hence they are preoccupied in maintaining their distance from the untouchables instead of with achieving equality with Brahmans. This class is weak in its aspiration for a social revolution…..We should accept that we are born to achieve this larger social purpose and consider that to be our life’s goal. Let us strive to gain that religious merit. Besides, this work (of bringing about a social revolution) is in our interest and it is our duty to dedicate ourselves to remove the obstacles in our path.

There was a strong reaction in the section of the press, perceived to be dominated by the entrenched higher caste interests. Dr Ambedkar was called “Bheemaasura” by one newspaper. Dr. Ambedkar justified the burning of Manusmruti in various articles that he penned after the satyagraha. In the February 3, 1928 issue of the Bahishkrit Bharat he explained the action to burn a thing was to register a protest against the idea it represented. By so doing one expected to shame the person concerned into modifying his behaviour. He said further that it would be futile to expect that any person who revered the Manusmriti could be genuinely interested in the welfare of the Untouchables. He compared the burning of the Manusmriti to the burning of foreign cloth recommended by Gandhi. Protests the world over had used the burning of an article that symbolised oppression to herald a struggle. This was what the Manusmurti Dahan was.

The tactical retreat

Meanwhile, condemned by a sudden Court ruling to hold back the satyagraha of drinking water from the public water tank, Dr Ambedkar explained the dilemma faced by on the one hand the government/British Collector and entrenched high caste interests.

In a note entitled ‘Why the Satyagraha was Suspended’ in the 3 February 1928 issue of the Bahishkrit Bharat, Ambedkar said, “The untouchables are caught between the caste Hindus and the government. They can attack one of the two. There is nothing to be ashamed of in admitting that today they do not have the strength to attack both of them at the same time. When the caste Hindus refused to concede the legitimate rights of untouchables as human beings willingly and on their own initiative, we thought it wise to arrive at a peace (agreement) with the government…… There is a world of difference between a satyagraha launched by caste Hindus and one launched by untouchables. When the caste Hindus initiate a satyagraha it is against the government and they have community support….. When the untouchables launch a satyagraha all the caste Hindus are arraigned against us.”

He observed further that the agitation of the untouchables was not limited to the Mahad water tank. It had been launched to achieve the larger goals the untouchables had set for themselves. The answer to whether it could have been sustained depended upon one’s estimate of the loss and the hurt that would have resulted from the satyagraha and the means that were available to protect the people from this loss and hurt. If the people had seen that they could not recover from the loss inflicted on them by one satyagraha in Mahad they would never rise again to join another satyagraha. This question had to be weighed.

What stands out is the openly rational, almost calculated approach to the strategy of the struggle and a willingness to present it as such. There is no effort to obfuscate or mystify it. Ambedkar responded to the concern that the withdrawal of the satyagraha would give caste-Hindu slanderers an opportunity to scoff at the untouchable leaders, by saying merely that he had not launched the satyagraha to win their approbation.

Courtesy: sabrang

-the modern nationalist

Protest : MILESTONE – BURNING THE MANUSMRITI IN TAMIL NADU

By | on December 1, 2020 | 0 Comment

Protest

October 1927

The first voice to burn the Manusmriti to ashes was raised by the veteran leader of the depressed, M.C. Raja on 17th October 1927 at the Adi Dravidar conference held at Katpadi, Vellore district.

December 1927

On 4th December, the Self Respecter J.S. Kannappar burnt the Manusmriti at Gudiyatham in the North Arcot District Self Respect Conference, organised by Thanthai Periyar

May 1981

The Women’s Wing of Dravidar Kazhagam burnt the Manusmriti on 17th May 1981 throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

March 2017

Again, the Dravidar Kazhagam Women’s Wing burnt the text of the Manusmriti on 10th March 2017 throughout Tamil Nadu.

February 2019

Asiriyar Dr. K. Veeramani, President, Dravidar Kazhagam led the agitation on 7th February 2019 at Chennai and burnt the Manusmriti. The Manusmriti burning agitation was conducted by the Blackshirt cadres of Dravidar Kazhagam on the day throughout the State of Tamil Nadu.

- the modern nationalist

How Brahmins enslaved the south Indians?

By | on February 1, 2021 | 0 Comment

featured

Enslaving brahminical practices devoid of hygiene

The Brahman in his pride of intellectual superiority, residing largely in the domain of religion, was determined to maintain his privileged position against the mass of animistic belief which he found when he entered the plains of South India. He was unwilling to undertake the always difficult process of securing an intelligent conviction in those who were of a different way of thinking; he chose the easier way of self- accommodation, and compromised what to him was truth in order to achieve the selfish end of maintaining his position as spiritual dictator to his fellows. Lacking in his composition the hard grain which refuses to stretch conviction beyond the confines of truth, he found that his philosophy was sufficiently elastic to cover any superstition, however absurd, and to condone any custom, however immoral. He was thus able to secure for his order not only the direction of public ceremonial in the temple, not only the exclusive authority to interpret both the recorded wisdom of the past and the common traditions of successive generations, but the even more powerful influence of the domestic priesthood. His was the voice which declared the propitious day for the family undertaking, and it was he who ordered at a price the domestic ritual to be observed at birth, at marriage, and at death. He could make any concession to local prejudice which he might think desirable, and he incorporated into his own more philosophical system the crudities of an inferior faith. What was the Animism which thus formed the testing of sincerity in these Aryan invaders of India? It is a view of the world as inhabited by spirits (animae). It is recognition of dark, mysterious forces of which no account can be given. Every object or process which was unknown or unusual was held to be the abode of mysterious power. But, further, such powers were invariably held to be malignant. The unknown was considered to be invariably inimical, and such worship as was paid was no grateful offering symbolizing the allegiance and the devotion of the worshipper, but a propitiatory gift intended to buy off the threatening peril. That is to say that the Dravidian, and still more the aboriginal tribe in the hills, lived in an atmosphere of fear ; such things as the snake, or such experiences as that of disease, indicated to him the presence of a malignant power before which he bowed in terror, and which he sought to pacify by such offerings as were within his reach. Ignorance and fear were the twin motives of his religious observance. The priests who presided over his ritual were sorcerers who were learned in the arts of magic, and who were able thereby to appease and propitiate the hostile power. Then the supreme mystery of death played no small part in forming his creed. That which had left the body was conceived of as a ghost, and a hostile ghost, which needed propitiatory offerings if it was to desist from its otherwise inevitable menace to living beings. The worship of ancestors, always an instinct in primaeval man, thus became linked with the worship of inanimate objects, whom one claim to worship was that they were dangerous. Ancestral worship it was which imported into the faith of the people those traces of belief in a personal deity which may be detected in Animism. The doctrine of transmigration was developed later, but its traces, too, are to be found in the primaeval belief which we are now considering, since the wandering ghost might find a new habitation in some other human body or within some natural object. Such a religion, it will be easily seen, lends itself to every form of superstition, and usually passes away as education narrows the realm of the unknown, and reveals the causes of natural phenomena. How, then, are we to explain the fact that the Hindu religion remains full of this element of superstition, so that even the twice-born Aryan who subscribes to a philosophy of pure idealism is as much under its influence as if he were the merest Animist? The answer is that this element persists because it was taken up into the more intellectual system. It was brought into alliance with the philosophy of the Aryans. These last were not concerned with driving away from the minds of their Dravidian brethren the darkness which enveloped their minds, but rather with the exploiting of it to their own advantage. Their priests stretched their philosophy so as to cover every form of religious observance, however degrading it might be. By peaceful penetration they secured a complete spiritual supremacy. Incorporation gave them dominance. But it was at a terrible cost. Their own thought, which had approached a true monotheism, became debased by idolatry, and such gleams of moral consciousness as appear in the earlier and loftier hymns of the Rigveda were speedily quenched in the allowance, and the practice, of gross immoralities. The principle of accommodation and compromise led to moral and spiritual corruption. The whole process has been analysed for us by a master mind in the terrible verses which we find in the first chapter of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and the history of religion in India is the object-lesson which verifies the apostolic indictment of natural religion, so swiftly assuming the most unnatural forms unless led to its fulfilment by Divine revelation.

Some tribes have retained their Animism almost without admixture, but these are tribes which have retreated before the invaders of their country into the fastnesses of the hills. Others have been so far influenced by Aryan thought that they now find themselves related to it in a sense. They have, indeed, no part in the worship offered by their superiors, nor does the Brahman priest attempt to control them. They are outcast from the four great divisions of Hindu society. These latter are dependent upon them for all sorts of menial labour, and often exact this so unscrupulously as to reduce their victims to a condition of serfdom, if not of actual slavery. These, again, have approximated, as far as they were allowed, to the custom of the higher classes, and there are traces among them of some attempt to set up caste distinctions within their own community, separate as this is. There is, however, a distinct penetration of thought derived from Aryans among these despised people. Anything approaching a system of philosophy is not to be sought among them. It is entirely absent. But the effects of Brahmanical thought are to be found even among their crude conceptions. Just as the Aryan has allowed himself to be affected by Animistic belief and superstition, these Animists have breathed the atmosphere of Pantheistic teaching, until there have appeared among them the same moral confusions, the same lack of moral responsibility, and the same hopelessness of salvation, which characterize those who accept Pantheism as their interpretation of God and the World. It is these three factors which must be considered as the real hindrance to Christianity, the caste of the Brahmans, the general caste system, and Indian Pantheism. The mind of the Aryan thus passed to a more polytheistic conception, and there was no staying that process when it had once begun. But as the Vedic poets speak of the one god they are immediately addressing at any moment as supreme, and heap upon him all the highest attributes, while not denying the divinity of other gods, the term Henotheism has been coined as expressing more accurately than either Monotheism or Polytheism the Vedic conception of the Divine.

But side by side with this polytheistic process there sprang up a tendency destined to play an all-important part in shaping the Hindu conception of God. Against the Polytheism thus early beginning to appear there was bound to be a reaction on the intellectual side, due to the demand of the mind for some central unity in its conception of God and the world, and thus there arose, fitfully at first there are indications even in the Vedic hymns but later in gathering force what we call Pantheism. In its full development the unity desired was found by roundly denying the existence of anything but God. Necessarily this deity was an impersonal Substance/ and the neuter Brahma was chosen as the name for that deity. With this tendency there went another. The intellectual movement did not stand alone; there went with it the sacerdotal. The more popular movement was in the direction of appeasing or cajoling the deity, and the method adopted a natural one of great significance was that of sacrifice. This gave rise to a priestly class, and the latter set out to exploit in its own interests the religious feeling of the time, which had then passed from the stage of adoration to that of securing favour or averting disaster. Under the title Brahman the priest finally secured the pre-eminent position in India, and still holds that position.

(to be continued)

(Published with due acknowledgement to the author)

 - The modern rationalist

Why American Children Stopped Believing in God?

By | on January 1, 2021 | 0 Comment

faith vs. freewill

Cameron Hilditch

In a report released earlier this year from the American Enterprise Institute, Lyman Stone tracked the history of religious belief, behavior, and association in the United States since the Founding. It’s a magisterial work, and I encourage readers to download the report here and peruse it for themselves.

Stone’s research helps us to understand the decline of religious faith in America over the past 60 years. Secularization is, to be sure, a hugely over determined development in American history, and just about everyone has a theory about how it’s happened and why. Religious conservatives would probably cite the loosening of the country’s morals that began in the ’60s and ’70s. Secular progressives might mutter something about the onward march of “Science” and “Reason” over time. But the data seem to show that the main driver of secularization in the United States has been the acceleration of government spending on education and government control over the curricular content taught in schools.

Here our secular progressive might raise his head again, perhaps feeling a bit smug about this finding. “See!”, he says. “Children used to be deprived of education and the life of the mind! They were stuck in the doldrums of ignorance and squalor before the benevolent hand of the state reached down and lifted them up into the world of literacy and critical thought. All that was needed was a little education to free them from hokey superstitions.”

It’s a simple theory, befitting the minds of those who have historically espoused it. But it’s falsified by the data. Stone cites the seminal work of Raphael Franck and Laurence Iannaccone on this point, who meticulously tracked religious behavior over time in their own work. According to Franck and Iannaccone, “higher educational attainment did not predict lower religiosity: More and less educated people are similarly religious.” Nor did they “find that industrialized, urban life reduces religiosity: A more urban and industrialized population was associated with greater religiosity.” The link between intellectual progression/modernization and secularization is non-existent. As Stone summarizes:

Theories that religion has declined because urbanization is hostile to religiosity — or because modern, educated people are inherently skeptical of religion — get no support in the actual historic record.

It turns out that religiosity is usually determined very early in life. All the data suggest that, by and large, kids brought up in religious households stay religious and kids who aren’t, don’t. Consequently, childhood religiosity has been, and remains, the most important indicator of America’s religious trajectory. The story of religious decline in America is not the story of adults consciously rejecting the faith of their forefathers: It’s the story of each generation receiving a more secular upbringing than the generation preceding it. What accounts for this secularization of childhood over time? Taxpayer dollars.

Childhood religiosity was heavily affected by government spending on education and, to a lesser degree, government spending on old-age pensions. Thus, while more educated people were not less religious, societies that spent more public money on education were less religious. It is not educational attainment per se that reduces religiosity, but government control of education and, to a lesser extent, government support for retirement.

Researchers originally tried to explain the relationship between government control of education and secularization by putting it down to the State’s increasing willingness to care for the needs and wants of its citizens in a comprehensive way — a task traditionally carried out by religious institutions. Once people are no longer beholden to a church/synagogue/mosque for their material well-being — or so the theory goes — they see little reason to stay.

But this theory just doesn’t account for the data we have. As Stone observes, it’s belied by the fact “that the vast majority of declining religiosity can be attributed to changes in educational policy, rather than welfare generally.”

So how do we explain this link between education policy and religious belief given that academic attainment itself isn’t a factor? It’s quite simple, really. Children learn more at school than reading, writing, and arithmetic. They imbibe a whole set of implied assumptions about what’s important in life. By excluding religious instruction from public schools, the government-run education system tacitly teaches students that religious commitments are not a first-order priority in life. Faith in God becomes a sort of optional weekend hobby akin to playing tennis or video games. Christ and Moses are treated by teachers and administrators like weapons or drugs — confiscated upon discovery.

In this way, the hierarchy of values communicated both explicitly and implicitly to students in American high schools excludes religious claims from the outset. College, career, and popularity become the existential targets toward which the arrow of each student’s soul is aimed by bow-wielding commissars across the country. In a context such as this, secularization becomes ineluctable. The New Testament itself says that religious belief is shaped more by the places we look for praise and validation than by naked ratiocinations: “How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another, and you’re not looking for the glory which comes from the one and only God?” (John 5:44). But the secular public high school dispenses validation and praise according to different criteria than any of the major faiths. This is why government control of education has resulted in religious decline. As Stone writes:

. . . the content of education matters. Evidence that education reduces religiosity is fairly weak: American religiosity rose considerably from 1800 until the 1970s, despite rapidly rising educational attainment. But the evidence that specifically secular education might reduce religiosity is more compelling. Indeed, statistically, most researchers who have explored long-run change in religiosity find that education-related variables, which I have argued are a proxy for secular education, can explain nearly the totality of change in religiosity.

That last point bears repeating. Most researchers have found that “education-related variables… can explain nearly the totality of change in religiosity.” For religious conservatives who care about the fate of American culture, it cannot be emphasized enough that education is the whole ball game. All other policy areas amount to little more than tinkering around the edges. How we got to a place where this is the case is a sad story in and of itself (and one that I told in part here). Nevertheless, it remains the case that public schools often are not a smooth fit for conservative families, especially religious ones. Even worse than that, we can now see signs that the ideology imposed upon government-educated children is changing. What used to be the state-imposed orthodoxy of benign agnosticism is being replaced by a full-blown intersectional pseudo-religion with its own priests, prophets, saints, and martyrs.

The time has come for religious parents to take their children back from the state. It simply will not do anymore for faithful Americans to drop their sons and daughters off at the curbside every morning for the government to collect as if they were taking out the trash. As I’ve written before, a broader reconsideration of public schooling will not be cheap. It will require, among other things, the establishment of charitable private education co-operatives if we’re to heed the dictates of the world’s great faiths by keeping the interests of the poor at the forefront of our minds. But the only real road to religious revival is the one that begins with each parent’s first step out of the public school’s doors.

Source: ‘Yahoo! News’

The article narrates about the distancing of religion and the related practices at the public schools of United States of America. The public schools are secular. But at the same time the article speaks about the right of religious freedom of individual to get religious education to his/her wards separately by choosing the exclusive institutions meant for that.

– The Modern Rationalist