untouchables Archives - VedKaBhed.Com https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/tag/untouchables/ Truth About Hinduism Sat, 01 Aug 2020 14:23:13 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.1.1 मातंग चांडालपुत्र से ब्राह्मण बने ? https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01/02/matang-became-brahmin-from-chandal-hindi/ Thu, 02 Jan 2014 07:29:02 +0000 http://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01/02/matang-became-brahmin-from-chandal-hindi/ Written by Neer Mohammed   जब भी हिंदू धर्म में व्याप्त जाति व्यवस्था पर वार्तालाप की जाती है प्राय: जाति परिवर्तन के अनेकों उधारण दिये जाते हैं और ये संदेश दिया जाता है कि जाति बदली जा सकती है। हम अपने इस लेख और आने वालें लेखों में कुछ ऐसे ही उधारणों पर चर्चा करेंगे। मातंग चांडालपुत्र […]

The post मातंग चांडालपुत्र से ब्राह्मण बने ? appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Written by Neer Mohammed

 

जब भी हिंदू धर्म में व्याप्त जाति व्यवस्था पर वार्तालाप की जाती है प्राय: जाति परिवर्तन के अनेकों उधारण दिये जाते हैं और ये संदेश दिया जाता है कि जाति बदली जा सकती है। हम अपने इस लेख और आने वालें लेखों में कुछ ऐसे ही उधारणों पर चर्चा करेंगे।

मातंग चांडालपुत्र से ब्राह्मण बने ?

मतंग (ना की मातंग) ऋषि की कथा विस्तार से महाभारत के अनुशासन पर्व (अध्याय 27 से 29) में आती है। उसमे आता है कि मतंग ऋषि एक ब्राह्मणी के पेट से शूद्रजातीय नाई द्वारा पैदा किए गए एक चांडाल है (अनुशासन पर्व अध्याय 27 श्लोक 17)। शूद्र वर्ण में जन्मे मतंग ऋषि घोर तप करते हैं। उनकी तपस्या से प्रसन्न हो कर इन्द्र उनके पास कई बार आते है और वर मांगने के लिए कहते है। मतंग वर मांगते है कि “मैं ब्राह्मण बन जाऊं । इस पर इंद्र बार-बार इसे छोड़ कर कोई अन्य वर मांगने के लिए कहते हैं।

इन्द्र का कहना है कि:

चण्डालयोनौ जातेन नावाप्यं वै कथंचन     –  महाभारत अनुशासन पर्व अध्याय 29 श्लोक 4

चाण्डाल की योनि में जन्म लेने वाले को किसी तरह भी ब्राह्मणत्व नहीं मिल सकता।

मतंग ब्राह्मणत्वं ते विरुद्धमिह दृश्यते । ब्राह्मणयं दुर्लभतरं    – महाभारत अनुशासन पर्व अध्याय 29 श्लोक 8

मतंग इस जन्म में तुम्हारे लिए ब्राह्मणत्व की प्राप्ति असंभव दिखायी देती है। ब्राह्मणत्व अत्यंत दुर्लभ है।

लेकिन मतंग नहीं मानते। इन्द्र चले जाते हैं। ऐसा कई बार होता है। अंतिम बार इंद्र आते हैं। मतंग पहले सा आग्रह नहीं करते वह अन्य वर मांगते हैं। वह कहते हैं-

यथा कामविहारी स्यां कामरूपी विहड्नमः ।ब्रह्मक्षत्राविरोधेन पूजां प्राप्नुयामहम्

यथा ममाक्षया किर्तिर्भवेच्चापि पुरंदर ।कर्तुमर्हसि तद् देव शीरसा त्वां प्रसादये           – महाभारत अनुशासन पर्व अ० 29 श० 22-23

देव पुरंदर आप ऐसी कृपा करें, जिससे मैं इच्छानुसार विचरनेवाला तथा अपनी इच्छा के अनुसार रूपधारण करने वाला आकाशचारी देवता होऊँ ब्राह्मण और क्षत्रियों के विरोध से रहित हो मैं सर्वत्र पूजा एवं सत्कार प्राप्त करूँ तथा मेरी अक्षय किर्ति का विस्तार हो। मैं आपके चरणों में मस्तक रख कर आपकी प्रसन्नता चाहता हूँ। आप मेरी इस प्राथना को सफल बनाइये ।।

इंद्र वर देते हुए कहते हैं-

छंदोदेव इति ख्यातः स्त्रीणां पुज्यो भविष्यसि ।किर्तिश्र्च ते तुला वत्स त्रिषु लोकेषु यास्यति॥महाभारत अनुशासन पर्व अ० 29 श० 24

इंद्र  ने कहावत्स ! तुम स्त्रियों के पूजनीय होओगे। छंदोदेव के नाम से तुम्हारी ख्याति होगी और तीनों लोकों में तुम्हारी अनुपम किर्ति का विस्तार होगा  ।।

स्पष्ट है की मतंग चांडाल से ब्राह्मण नहीं बना ।इसी बात को 29 वे अध्याय के 26 वें श्लोक में दोहराया गया है-

एवमेतत् परं स्थानं ब्राह्मण्यं नाम भारत  तच्च दुष्प्रापमिह वै महेंद्रवचनं यथा       महाभारत अनुशासन पर्व   29 अ० श० 26

भारत ! इस तरह यह ब्राह्मणत्व परम उत्तम स्थान है। जैसा की इंद्र का कथन है, यह इस जीवन में दूसरे वर्ण के लोगों के लिए दुर्लभ है।

आर्यसमाजियों की धोकेभाज़ी- मूल मंत्र में हेराफेरी

इतनी स्पष्ट मतंगकथा के होते हुए भी किस तरह लोग भ्रांति में पड़ते हैं। इस का कारण स्वामी दयानंद जी का सत्यार्थ प्रकाश है, जिस में लिखा है-“ महाभारत में……मातंग ऋषि चांडाल कुल से ब्राह्मण हो गए थे।” (चतुर्थ समुल्लास)। इस बात को पुष्ट करने के लिए सत्यार्थप्रकाश के आर्यसमाज शताब्दी संस्करण (रामलाल कपूर ट्रस्ट प्रकाशन) के पृष्ठ 141 पर पादटिप्पणी में संपादकों ने महाभारत ,अनुशासन पर्व (3/19) का एक श्लोक,बिना अर्थ लिखे ,अंकित कर दिया है-

स्थाने मातंगो ब्राह्मण्यमलभद् भरतर्षभ,

चण्डालयोनौ जातो हि कथं ब्राह्मण्यमवाप्तवान्

कुछ ऐसा हि प्रयास सत्यार्थप्रकाश मानक संस्करण( श्रीमद् दयानंद सत्यार्थ प्रकाश न्यास ) द्वारा किया गया। इस संस्करण में विशेष टिप्पणी भाग पृष्ठ 27 में मतंग ऋषि के प्रकरण पर यह टिप्पणी बिना अर्थ के की गयी है-

स्थाने मतंगो ब्राह्मण्यमलभद् भरतर्षभ,

चण्डालयोनौ जातो हि कथं ब्राह्मण्यमवाप्तवान्             -महा,अनु (3/19)

इसी पथ पर चलते हुए कुछ वीरों ने (या कहिए झूठो ने) भी वीरता (पढ़िये कायरता) दिखाने की कोशिश की है:

[Note: The url is erased without the permission of the writer Neer Mohammed by the admin of VedKaBhed]

इस श्लोक में आर्यसमाजियों ने हेराफेरी की है। मूल में “न” शब्द था, जो पादटिप्पणी में गायब है। अर्थ वैसे ही नहीं लिखा था। आर्यसमाजियों की बोधिक ईमानदारी का अंदाजा पाठक स्वयं लगा सकते हैं। अब यह जिज्ञासा बनी रहती है कि वास्तव में इस श्लोक का क्या अर्थ है। प्रकरण विश्वामित्र का चल रहा है। अध्याय के अंत में युधिष्ठिर का प्रश्नात्मक कथन है

स्थाने मतंगो ब्राह्मण्यं नालभद् भरतर्षभ,

चण्डालयोनौ जातो हि कथं ब्राह्मण्यमवाप्तवान्             -महा,अनु (3/19)

प्रमाण

1.गीता प्रैस गोरखपुर महाभारत हिन्दी अनुवाद सहित पृ. 5439

इस का अर्थ प्रकरण में इस तरह आता है: भरतश्रेष्ठ, मतंग को जो ब्राह्मणत्व नहीं प्राप्त हुआ,यह उचित ही था,क्योंकि उस का जन्म चांडाल की योनि में हुआ था,परंतु विश्वामित्र ने कैसे ब्राह्मणत्व प्राप्त कर लिया ?

स्वामी दयानंद का कथन महाभारत के उपरोक्त विवरण के बिलकुल विपरीत होने के कारण निराधार और कपोलकल्पित है। यहा स्पष्ट है की मतंग ब्राह्मण नहीं बनते, इस श्लोक में विश्वामित्र जी का भी उल्लेख किया गया है। इसकी यथार्थता हम इस श्रंखला के अगले लेख में देखेंगे।

 

The post मातंग चांडालपुत्र से ब्राह्मण बने ? appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Manu and the Shudras https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01/01/manu-and-shudras/ Wed, 01 Jan 2014 10:58:15 +0000 http://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01/01/manu-and-shudras/ [This is a 31 page hand written Ms. of Dr. Ambedkar. The chapter has no title. It is also left incomplete. The title is suggested—editor.] I The reader is now aware that in the Scheme of Manu there were two principal social divisions : those outside the Chaturvarna and those inside the Chaturvarna. The reader […]

The post Manu and the Shudras appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
[This is a 31 page hand written Ms. of Dr. Ambedkar. The chapter has no title. It is also left incomplete. The title is suggested—editor.]

I

The reader is now aware that in the Scheme of Manu there were two principal social divisions : those outside the Chaturvarna and those inside the Chaturvarna. The reader also knows that the present day Untouchables are the counterpart of those outside the Chaturvarna and that those inside the Chaturvarna were contrasted with those outside. They were a composite body made up of four different classes, the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Vaishyas and the Shudras. The Hindu social system is not only a system in which the idea of classes is more dominant than the idea of community but it is a system which is based on inequality between classes and therefore between individuals. To put it concretely, the classes i. e. the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas, Shudras and Antyajas (Untouchables) are not horizontal, all on the same level. They are vertical i.e. one above the other. No Hindu will controvert this statement. Every Indian knows it. If there is any person who would have any doubt about it he can only be a foreigner. But any doubt which a foreigner might have will be dissolved if he is referred to the law of Manu who is the chief architect of the Hindu society and whose law has formed the foundations on which it is built. For his benefit I reproduce such texts from the Manu Smriti as go to prove that Hindu society is based on the principle of inequality.
 

II

It might be argued that the inequality prescribed by Manu in his Smriti is after all of historical importance. It is past history and cannot be supposed to have any bearing on the present conduct of the Hindu. I am sure nothing can be greater error than this. Manu is not a matter of the past. It is even more than a past of the present. It is a ‘living past’ and therefore as really present as any present can be.
That the inequality laid down by Manu was the law of the land under the pre-British days may not be known to many foreigners. Only a few instances will show that such was the case.
Under the rule of the Marathas and the Peshwas the Untouchables were not allowed within the gates of Poona city, the capital of the Peshwas between 3 p. m. and 9 a. m. because, before nine and after three, their bodies cast too long a shadow; and whenever their shadow fell upon a Brahmin it polluted him, so that he dare not taste food or water until he had bathed and washed the impurity away. So also no Untouchable was allowed to live in a walled town ; cattle and dogs could freely enter but not the Untouchables[1]
Under the rule of the Marathas and the Peshwas the Untouchables might not spit on the ground lest a Hindu should be polluted by touching it with his foot, but had to hang an earthen pot round his neck to hold his spittle. He was made to drag a thorny branch of a tree with him to brush out his footsteps and when a Brahman came by, had to lie at a distance on his face lest his shadow might fall on the Brahman[2]
In Maharashtra an Untouchable was required to wear a black thread either in his neck or on his wrist for the purpose of ready identification.
In Gujarat the Untouchables were compelled to wear a horn as their distinguishing mark[3].
In the Punjab a sweeper was required while walking through streets in towns to carry a broom in his hand or under his armpit as a mark of his being a scavenger[4].
In Bombay the Untouchables were not permitted to wear clean or untorn clothes. In fact the shopkeepers took the precaution to see that before cloth was sold to the Untouchable it was torn & soiled.
In Malabar the Untouchables were not allowed to build houses above one storey in height[5] and not allowed to cremate their dead[6].
In Malabar the Untouchables were not permitted to carry umbrellas, to wear shoes or golden ornaments, to milk cows or even to use the ordinary language of the country[7].
In South India Untouchables were expressly forbidden to cover the upper part of their body above the waist and in the case of women of the Untouchables they were compelled to go with the upper part of their bodies quite bare[8].
In the Bombay Presidency so high a caste as that of Sonars (gold- smiths) was forbidden to wear their Dhoties with folds[9] and prohibited to use Namaskar as the word of salutation#.

# The following letter will be interesting to the reader as it throws a flood of light as to whether the Dhamia prescribed by Manu was or was not the law of the land-

” To
Damulsett Trimbucksett
Head of the Caste of Goldsmiths.
” The Hon ‘ble the President in Council having thought proper to prohibit the Caste of Goldsmiths from making use of the form of salutation termed Namaskar, you are hereby pre-emptorily enjoined to make known this order and resolution to the whole caste and to take care that the same be strictly observed.
By order

 Secretary to Government

 sig. W. Page

Bombay
9th August 1779.

                                                              Resolution of Government
                                                               Dated 28th July 1779.
” Frequent disputes having arisen for some time between the Brahmins and Goldsmiths respecting a mode of salutation termed ” Namaskar ” made use of by the latter, and which the Brahmins allege they have no right to perform, and that the exercise of such ceremony by the Goldsmiths is a great breach and profanation of the rights of the Gentoo {Hindu] Religion, and repeated complaints having been made to us by the Brahmins, and the Peishwa also having several times written to the President, requesting the use of the Namaskar might be prohibited to the Goldsmiths-Resolved as it i« necessary. This matter should be decided by us in order that the dispute between the two castes may be put an end to, and the Brahmins appear to have reason for their complaint, that the Goldsmiths be forbidden the use of the Namaskar, and this being a matter wherein the Company’s interest is not concerned, our Resolution may be put on the footing of a compliment to the Peishwa whom the President is desired to make acquainted with our determination.”

Under the Maratha rule any one other than a Brahmin uttering a Veda Mantra was liable to have his tongue cut off and as a matter of fact the tongues of several Sonars (goldsmiths) were actually cut off by the order of the Peshwa for their daring to utter the Vedas contrary to law.
All over India Brahmin was exempt from capital punishment. He could not be hanged even if he committed murder.
Under the Peshwas distinction was observed in the punishment of the criminals according to the caste. Hard labour and death were punishments mostly visited on the Untouchables[10].
Under the Peshwas Brahmin clerks had the privilege of their goods being exempted from certain duties and their imported corn being carried to them without any ferry charges; and Brahmin landlords had their lands assessed at distinctly lower rates than those levied from other classes. In Bengal the amount of rent for land varied with the caste of the occupant and if the tenant was an Untouchable he had to pay the highest rent.
These facts will show that Manu though born some time before B. C. or sometime after A. D. is not dead and while the Hindu Kings reigned, justice between Hindu and Hindu, touchable and untouchable was rendered according to the Law of Manu and that law was avowedly based on inequality.
 

III

This is the dharma laid down by Manu. It is called Manav Dharma i. e. Dharma which by its inherent goodness can be applied to all men in all times and in all places. Whether the fact that it has not had any force outside India is a blessing or a curse I do not stop to inquire. It is important to note that this Manav Dharma is based upon the theory that the Brahman is to have all the privileges and the Shudra is not to have even the rights of a human being, that the Brahman is to be above everybody in all things merely by reason of his high birth and the Shudra is to be below everybody and is to have none of the things no matter how great may be his worth.
Nothing can show the shamelessness and absurdity of this Manava Dharma better than turning it upside down. I know of no better attempt in this behalf than that of Dr. R. P. Pranjape agreat Educationist, Politician and Social reformer and I make no apology for reproducing it in full—

Peep Into the Future[11]

This piece Was written against the Non-Brahmin Parties which were then in power in the Bombay and Madras Presidency and in the Central Provinces. The Non-Brahmin parties were founded with the express object of not allowing a single community to have a monopoly in State Service. The Brahmins have a more or less complete monopoly in the State services in all provinces in India and in all departments of State. The Non-Brahmin parties had therefore laid down the principle, known as the principle of communal ratio, that given minimum qualifications candidates belonging to non-Brahmin communities should be given preference over Brahmin candidates when making appointments in the public services. In my view there was nothing wrong in this principle. It was undoubtedly wrong that the administration of the country should be in the hands of a single community however clever such a community might be.
The Non-Brahmin Party held the view that good Government was better than efficient Government was not a principle to be confined only to the composition of the Legislature & the Executive. But that it must also be made applicable to the field of administration. It was through administration that the State came directly in contact with the masses. No administration could do any good unless it was sympathetic. No administration could be sympathetic if it was manned by the Brahmins alone. How can the Brahmin who holds himself superior to the masses, despises the rest as low caste and Shudras, is opposed to their aspiration, is instinctively led to be partial to his community and being uninterested in the masses is open to corruption be a good administrator ? He is as much an alien to the Indian masses as any foreigner can be. As against this the Brahmins have been taking their stand on efficiency pure & simple. They know that this is the only card they can play successfully by reason of their advanced position in education. But they forget that if efficiency was the only criterion then in all probability there would be very little chance for them to monopolise State service in the way and to the extent they have done. For if efficiency was made the only criterion there would be nothing wrong in employing Englishmen, Frenchmen, Germans & Turks instead of the Brahmins of India. Be that as it may, the Non-Brahmin Parties refused to make a fetish to efficiency and insisted that there must be introduced the principle of communal ratio in the public services in order to introduce into the administration an admixture of all castes & creeds and thereby make it a good administration. In carrying out this principle the Non-Brahmin Parties in their eagerness to cleanse the administration of Brahmindom while they were in power, did often forget the principle that in redressing the balance between the Brahmins and non-Brahmins in the public services they were limited by the rule of minimum efficiency. But that does not mean that the principle they adopted for their guidance was not commendable in the interests of the masses.
This policy no doubt set the teeth of many Brahmins on edge. They were vehement in their anger. This piece by Dr. Paranjpe is the finest satire on the policy of the non-Brahmin Party. It caricatures the principle of the non-Brahman party in a manner which is inimitable and at the time when it came out, I know many non-Brahmin leaders were not only furious but also speechless. My complaint against Dr. Paranjpe is that he did not see the humour of it. The non-Brahmin Party was doing nothing new. It was merely turning Manu Smriti upside down. It was turning the tables. It was putting the Brahmin in the position in which Manu had placed the Shudra. Did not Manu give privileges to Brahmin merely because he was a Brahmin ? Did not Manu deny any right to the Shudra even though he deserved it ? Can there be much complaint if now the Shudra is given some privileges because he is a Shudra ? It may sound absurd but the rule is not without precedent and that precedent is the Manu Smriti itself. And who can throw stones at the non-Brahmin Party ? The Brahmins may if they are without sin. But can the authors and worshippers, upholders of Manu Smriti claim that they are without sin? Dr. Paranjpe’s piece is the finest condemnation of the inquity that underlies this Manav Dharma. It shows as nothing else does what a Brahmin feels when he is placed in the position of a Shudra.

IV

Inequality is not confined to Hindus. It prevailed elsewhere also and was responsible for dividing society into higher and lower free and servile classes. (Left incomplete in Ms—ed.)

[1] Dr. Murray Milchell-Great Religions of India, p. 63
[2] Bombay Gazetteer. Vol. XII. p. 175.
[3] Ency R.&. E. Vol. IX p. 636 (b).
[4] Punjab Census Report 1911 p. 413
[5] Bhattacharya-p. 259.
[6] Madras Census 1891 .p. 299
[7] Bhatacharya-Hindu Castes-p. 259.
[8] Madras Census 1891 p. 224
[9] This mode of wearing dhoties was referred for Brahmins only. The Shudras were to wear it without folds.
[10] G. B. Vom &.Off’icial Wrling sof Mot Hstuart Elphinst OM. 1884.pp.310-ll.
[11] Reproduced from-Gujarali Punch-May 1921 (Not quoted in the Ms.—ed.)

The post Manu and the Shudras appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Caste and Racial Discrimination https://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01/01/caste-and-racial-discrimination/ Wed, 01 Jan 2014 09:42:38 +0000 http://vedkabhed.com/index.php/2014/01/01/caste-and-racial-discrimination/ Written by Ibn Muhammad A study of various religions of the world makes it clear that only the Hindu religion sanctions the worst form of discrimination based on one’s birth. May be some followers of other religions also practice some sort of caste discrimination. However, their religious texts do not approve of the caste discrimination. […]

The post Caste and Racial Discrimination appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>
Written by Ibn Muhammad

A study of various religions of the world makes it clear that only the Hindu religion sanctions the worst form of discrimination based on one’s birth. May be some followers of other religions also practice some sort of caste discrimination. However, their religious texts do not approve of the caste discrimination. This is not the case with Hinduism though. Hindus derive the caste system directly from their scriptures and their scriptures sanction Caste discrimination.

The Hindu religion, from the very beginning, has sowed division between one human and the other.  Let us take a look at the sanction provided to this discriminatory institution in the Hindu scriptures and also, simultaneously respond to modern Hindu polemics which try to deny Caste System in Hindu Scriptures.

Following is a list of verbatim quotations from Hindu scriptures, which speak of and approve the caste system:

  1. बराह्मणो.अस्य मुखमासीद बाहू राजन्यः कर्तः |
    ऊरूतदस्य यद वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत || 

    “The Brahmana was his [God’s] mouth, of both his arms was the Rājanya made. His thighs became the Vaishya, from his feet the Shudra was produced.”  [Purusha Sukta; Rigveda 10/90/12 and Yajurveda 31/11 and Atharvaveda 19/6/6]
  2. “For Brahman (Priesthood) he binds a Brahmana to the stake; for Kshatriya (Royalty) a Râjanya; for rearing cattle a Vaishya; for Penance a Shudra;” [Yajurveda 30/5]
  3. नृत्ताय सूतं 
    “For Dance, God creates a Soot.” [Yajurveda 30/6] A ‘Soot’ is the son of a Kshatriya and a Brahmin woman who generally does the business of dancing. Here caste and profession is determined by birth. Refer to Manu Smriti 10/11.
  4. गीताय शैलूषं
    “For song, God creates a bard.” [Yajurveda 30/6]
  5. तपसे कौलालं 
    “For penance, God creates a potter’s son.” [Yajurveda 30/7]
  6. वैशन्ताभ्यो वैन्दं 
    “For maintaining small tanks, God creates the son of a Nishada.” [Yajurveda 30/16] A ‘Nishada’ is the son of a Brahmin man and a Shudra woman. Refer to Manu Smriti Chapter 10, verse 8.
  7. ये गर्भा अवपद्यन्ते जगद् यच्चपलुप्यते |
    वीरा ये तृह्यन्ते मिथो ब्रह्मजाया हिनस्ति तान् ||
    “Whatever infants die, untimely born, Whatever herds of cattle waste away, Whatever heroes strike each other dead, the Brāhmin’s wife destroys them.” [Atharvaveda 5/17/7]
  8. उत यत् पतयो दश स्त्रियाः पूर्वे अब्राह्मणाः |
    ब्रह्मा चेद्धस्तमग्रहीत् स एव पतिरेकधा ||
    ब्राह्मण एव पतिर्न राजन्यो न वैश्यः |

    “Even if ten former husbands—none a Brāhmin—had espoused a dame, And then a Brāhmin took her hand, he is her husband, only henot Vaisya, not Rājanya, no, the Brāhmin is indeed her lord: [Atharvaveda 5/17/8-9]
  9. शूद्रार्यावसृज्येताम
    “Shudra and Arya were created.” [Yajurveda 14/30]  Here Shudras and Aryas are clearly differentiated. Thus only Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are considered Arya (translated as ‘Noble’ by Arya Samaj). Therefore, Shudras are ‘Anaryas’.
  10. आर्य ईश्वर्पुत्रः
    Arya’ means ‘Son of God’, according to Nirukt 6/26Combining points 9 and 10, Shudras and other low castes are not sons of God or the beloved of God.
  11.  So, what should be the behaviour of Aryans towards the non-Aryans? Various mantras of the Vedas make it clear that Aryans have the God-given right to oppress the non-Aryans, take their wealth and if they resist, kill them.
  12. In Vedic times, there lived an untouchable people in a village named Kikat, in todays Bihar. The used to rear cattle. Obviously to the Aryans this was a crime. So they invoked their warrior god Indra to wage war against them and loot their cows.किं ते कर्ण्वन्ति कीकटेषु गावो नाशिरं दुह्रे न तपन्तिघर्मम |
    आ नो भर परमगन्दस्य वेदो नैचाशाखं मघवन्रन्धया नः ||

    “O Indra, what do the cows make for you among the Kikatas? They neither yield milk for your offerings, nor do they warm the vessel of libation. Bring to us these cows, bring to us also the wealth of Pramagand (their King). O Brave one, grant us the possessions of the people of low status.” [Rigveda 3:53:14]
    On the basis of this clear pronouncement, non-Aryans and untouchables have no right to keep cows. Aryans, whenever they wish can kill them and appropriate their possessions. Hindu culture thus becomes the culture of the progress, civilization and welfare of the Aryan people alone. The pathetic plight of the untouchables of India was due to instructions like these given by Hindu scriptures.
  13. These non-Aryans have been described at several places in the Vedas as अन्यव्रतम (followers of another religion),अमानुषम (not human), अयज्वानम (not performing Yajna) [Rigveda 8/70/11]
  14. इन्द्रः समत्सु यजमानमार्यं परावद विश्वेषु शतमूतिराजिषु सवर्मीळ्हेष्वाजिषु | मनवे शासदव्रतान तवचं कर्ष्णामरन्धयत | 
    Indra is said to help the Aryan worshippers in battles and punishes the neglector of religious rites, who are said to be having ‘black skin’ (तवचं कर्ष्णाम). [Rigveda 1/130/8]
  15. The maidens of the ‘dark race’ are the free sexual dishes of Aryans. Nirukt 12/13 mentions that ‘Raamaa‘, the lovely maidens belonging to the dark race are only for enjoyment and not for any sacred purpose.
  16. Shudras have no right to read the Vedas according to Hindu scriptures. However, in recent times some modern Hindus who felt ashamed to carry the burden of this clear discrimination and suppression, tried to reinterpret Hindus texts in such a way which allowed Shudras to also read the Vedas. Some Hindu polemicists, present mantra 2 of Yajurveda chapter 26 as proof that all Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishas, Shudras, the kinsfolk allowed to study the Vedas. The Arya samaj translation of Swami Dayanand more or less goes like this,“I do hereby address this salutary speech for the benefit of humanity, for Brahmins, the Kshatriyas, the Shudras, the Vaishas, my women and servants, and the men of lowest position in society. Dear may I be to the learned and the guerdon-giver in this world. Fulfilled be this desire of mine. May I achieve my aim.” [Yajurveda 26/2]
    This new, unique, twisted translation of Swami ji is opposed to common sense. If these are the words of God, according to the Swami, who are the women of God? and who are His servants? When did God get married to have kinsfolk? When God has already named Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishas and Shudras, for what purpose are women and servants  listed separately? Are women and servants outside the castes mentioned? Besides this, the desperation of God that he may be dear to all and his DESIRE be fulfilled , shows him as one craving for fame. This does not behoove God at all.
    All these questions are solved if we take these as not being the words of God. The words are in reality spoken by a Yajmaan (one who is performing the Yajna) asking for his desires to be fulfilled and the food presented in the Yajna be partaken by all. This mantra cannot be used to allow Shudras to read the Vedas.
  17. On the other hand the Hindu scriptures clearly prohibit a Shudra from studying the Vedas. Let us see the commentary on Brahmasutra 1/3/38
    And on account of the prohibition, in Smriti, of (the Sûdras’) hearing and studying (the Veda) and (knowing and performing) (Vedic) matters.
    Adi, Shankaracharya commenting on it writes,
    “The Sûdras are not qualified for that reason also that Smriti prohibits their hearing the Veda, their studying the Veda, and their understanding and performing Vedic matters. The prohibition of hearing the Veda is conveyed by the following passages: ‘The ears of him who hears the Veda are to be filled with (molten) lead and lac,’ and ‘For a Sûdra is (like) a cemetery, therefore (the Veda) is not to be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra.’ From this latter passage the prohibition of studying the Veda results at once; for how should he study Scripture in whose vicinity it is not even to be read? There is, moreover, an express prohibition (of the Sûdras studying the Veda). ‘His tongue is to be slit if he pronounces it; his body is to be cut through if he preserves it.’ The prohibitions of hearing and studying the Veda already imply the prohibition of the knowledge and performance of Vedic matters; there are, however, express prohibitions also, such as ‘he is not to impart knowledge to the Sûdra,’ and ‘to the twice-born belong study, sacrifice, and the bestowal of gifts.’–From those Sûdras, however, who, like Vidura and ‘the religious hunter,’ acquire knowledge in consequence of the after effects of former deeds, the fruit of their knowledge cannot be withheld, since knowledge in all cases brings about its fruit. Smriti, moreover, declares that all the four castes are qualified for acquiring the knowledge of the itihâsas and purânas; compare the passage, ‘He is to teach the four castes’ (Mahâbh.).–It remains, however, a settled point that they do not possess any such qualification with regard to the Veda.”
    Acharya Ramanuja commenting on the same Brahmasutra writes,
    “The Sûdra is specially forbidden to hear and study the Veda and to perform the things enjoined in it. ‘For a Sûdra is like a cemetery, therefore the Veda must not be read in the vicinity of a Sûdra;’ ‘Therefore the Sûdra is like a beast, unfit for sacrifices.’ And he who does not hear the Veda recited cannot learn it so as to understand and perform what the Veda enjoins. The prohibition of hearing thus implies the prohibition of understanding and whatever depends on it.”
    So, here we have two of the most influential Hindu schholars and intellectual giants totally prohibiting the Shudras from studying the Vedas.
  18. स्तुता मया कीर्ति वेदमात प्र चोदयन्तां पावमानी द्विजानाम् 
    “Let my libations, giving boons, adoring, further the Twice-born’s (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaishas) song that honours Soma.” [Atharvaveda 19/71/1]
  19. Shatapath Brahman 2/1/4/12 says,
    “With ‘bhûh!’ Prajâpati generated the Brahmin; with ‘bhuvah!’ the Kshatriya; with ‘svah!’ the Vaisya. As much as are the Brahmin, the Kshatriya, and the Vaisya, so much is this universe: with the universe it (the fire) is accordingly established.”
  20. The Upanishads are also supportive of the evil caste system.
    Upanishads clearly spell out that caste is based on birth due to the deeds of previous lives. This is the reason for this idea taking such root in the Hindu society that it continues to divide Indian society even today.

Chandogya Upanishad 5/10/7 says,

“Those whose conduct here on earth has been good will quickly attain some good birth—birth as a brahmin, birth as a kshatriya, or birth as a vaisya. But those whose conduct here has been evil will quickly attain some evil birth—birth as a dog, birth as a pig, or birth as a chandala.”

On one hand Upanishads talk of one Soul permeating all; only Brahma being real and the world being an illusion, while on the other hand they sanction this cruel birth based caste system.

  • Some Hindus give the example of Satyakaam Jabali, who was the son of a prostitute and became a Brahmin. This is an outright lie. If we read carefully the interview of Satyakaam by his would be Guru, Gautama Haridrumata, we find that birth based caste system is again affirmed. When the Guru asked Satyakaam of what family he was, he replied he did not know except what his mother told him. Hearing this straightforward answer, the Guru declared that he was a Brahmin, because NO ONE BUT A BRAHMIN SPEAKS IN SUCH A LANGUAGE. [Chandogya Upanishad 4/4/4-5] Note that the boy had not yet acquired knowledge and thus could not be a Brahmin. The Guru just by listening to his words decalred that he was from a Brahmin FAMILY. This proves that the caste was determined by birth. So this example of the modern Hindu revisionist backfires.
  • Even the ancient books on Sanskrit grammar are not free from the caste mindset. Panini states in his book AshtadhyaayiBook 8, Chapter 2, Sootra 83 that in response to the salution of greeting of a Shudra, one should reply to the salutation without any cheerfulness or being too friendly. However, in the case of the Dwijas/Twice borns, greeting must be returned with a better greeting.
  • Further, the same Panini writes in Ashtadhyaayi 2/4/10 शूद्राणां निरवसितानाम and शूद्राणां अनिरवसितानाम The latter means a Shudra who can take food from the dish of a higher class without permanently defiling the vessel. The former is that Shudra whose touch permanently defiles the vessel in which he takes food.
  • Manu Smriti is the clearest Hindu document which spells out that Shudras are just filthy and have to be enslaved. Many Hindus want to just do away with Manu Smriti but the excerciseis futile. Manu Smriti is authenticated by the Vedas and also the Upanishads.
  • But for the sake of the prosperity of the worlds he caused the Brahmana, the Kshatriya, the Vaisya, and the Sudra to proceed from his mouth, his arms, his thighs, and his feet. [Manu Smriti 1/31]
  • A low-caste man who tries to place himself on the same seat with a man of a high caste, shall be branded on his hip and be banished, or (the king) shall cause his buttock to be gashed. [Manu 8/281] Caste is by birth.
  • A Brahmana may confidently seize the goods of (his) Sudra (slave); for, as that (slave) can have no property, his master may take his possessions. [Manu 8/417]
  • But a Sudra, whether bought or unbought, he may compel to do servile work; for he was created by the Self-existent (Svayambhu) to be the slave of a Brahmin. [Manu 8/413]
  • A Sudra, though emancipated by his master, is not released from servitude; since that is innate in him, who can set him free from it? [Manu 8/414]
  • Dr. Surendra Kumar has written a detailed translation of Manu Smriti in Hindi that analyzes each shloka on various parameters and weeds out the verses which he assumed to have been interpolated. He concluded that a certain verse of Manu Smriti was interpolated if it contradicted with the Vedas. Now let us see the how these modern Hindus cremated their own ideology by this misadventure. Manu Smriti 1/96-97 says,“Of created beings the most excellent are said to be those which are animated; of the animated, those which subsist by intelligence; of the intelligent, mankind; and of men, the Brahmins; Of Brahmins, those learned (in the Veda); of the learned, those who recognise (the necessity and the manner of performing the prescribed duties); of those who possess this knowledge, those who perform them; of the performers, those who know the Brahman.”
    Note the bold and underlined text. It clearly implies that a Brahmin is one by birth. That is why is uses the words ‘of Brahmins, the most excellent are those learned (in the Veda)’. For the modern Hindus who assume that caste ACCORDING TO THE VEDAS is not by birth but by qualities, this text of Manu Smriti was an interpolation. Thus they removed it from the Revised Manu Smriti.

However, in their ignorance of the Vedas, they did a blunder. The same text is present in Atharvaveda 12/4/22 which says,
“If hundred other Brāhmins beg the Cow of him who owns her, The Gods have said, She, verily, belongs to him who is learned.”
This mantra also implies that Brahmins are Brahmins by birth and there may be more learned people among them. Now, if the text of Manu Smriti was ousted as an interpolation then by the same standard this mantra of Atharvaveda also is an interpolation.

  • Manusmriti declares that a Shudra cannot marry a girl from outside his caste. But a Brahmin can marry in the other three castes also in addition to his own. Similarly Kshatriyas and Vaishyas are allowed to marry girls from castes lower than their own besides from their own castes. [Manusmriti 3/13]
  • Know that a Brahmana of ten years and Kshatriya of a hundred years stand to each other in the relation of father and son; but between those two the Brahmana is the father.  [Manusmriti 2/135]
  • Manusmriti forbids a Shudra from giving evidence in a law-suit involving Brahmins. Similarly, a Brahmin cannot give evidence in a Shudra’s case. Shudras alone can appear as witnesses in a case involving Shudras and the same rule applies to scavangers also. [Manusmriti 8/ 68]
  • In short, the scriptures provide maximum punishment for Shudras, while the other castes get lesser punishment for the same kind of offence. The tongue of a Shudra who utters harsh words against the twice-born must be cut, says the ‘Manusmriti.’ If a Shudra pronounces the name and surname of a twice-born or utters impertinent words like “Hey Yagnadatt, you are a low Brahmin”, etc., a ten-inch-long, red-hot iron nail is to be thrust into his mouth.
    [Manusmriti 8 / 267 – 268]
  • Ironically, a Shudra is punished even for doing good deeds. Religious preaching was considered to be righteous act. But ‘Manusmriti’ says that hot oil must be poured into the mouth and ear of a Shudra who dares to preach to a Brahmin [Manusmriti 8 / 270 – 271]
  • A Shudra is not to be given good advice. Manu Smriti 4/80 says,“Let him not give to a Sudra advice, nor the remnants (of his meal), nor food offered to the gods; nor let him explain the sacred law (to such a man), nor impose (upon him) a penance.”
  • Let him not allow a dead Brahmin to be carried out by a Sudra, while men of the same caste are at hand; for that burnt-offering which is defiled by a Sudra’s touch is detrimental to (the deceased’s passage to) heaven. [Manusmriti 5/104]
  • Even social reformers like Swami Dayanand could not escape the strong influence of the Shastric injunctions. He too gives some do’s and don’ts in dealing with Shudras. Some of them are as follows:
    1. Eat food offered by Brahmins but don’t eat food offered by the Shudras like Chandals, scavengers, cobblers etc.
    2. Only on the occasion of grave emergency is one allowed to take food cooked in a Shudra’s house.
    3. A shudra who fulfils the conditions needed to pursue the studies of scriptures can be taught all the Shastras except the Vedas. Many religious teachers agree to the fact that a Shudra can pursue studies of scriptures but there can be no sacred thread ceremony for him. Since Swami Dayanand does not refute this attitude of the teachers, it can be inferred that he also subscribes to their views.
    4. The tag ‘Das‘ must be attached to the name of a Shudra (Sanskaar Vidhi  Pg 66)
  • Death is the reward for a Shudra who performs religious rites. An episode in the ‘Valmiki Ramayan’ says that a Brahmin put the blame for the death of his young son on Lord Ram. Then Narad came and explained to Ram that the death was owing to the illegitimate asceticism of a Shudra named Shambhuka.
    In another context, it is said that Ram saw a boy in the direction of South doing penance. When Ram asked the boy the reason for his penance, he replied that he wanted to conquer the ‘Devalok’ and then attain Godhood. He introduced himself as a Shudra named Shambhuka. When Ram came to know the Shudra identity of Shambhuka, he immediately killed him with his sword. And the Gods expressed their gratitude by showering praises on Ram.
  • Did Ram eat the fruit tasted by Shabri ?
    One is prompted to ask the question why Shudras are treated with contempt if, as claimed earlier, Ram ate the fruit offered by Shabri (a Shudra woman)?
    We want to know in which of the ‘Ramayans’ the above episode occurs? Surely, there is no mention about Ram’s eating the defiled fruit in ‘Anand Ramayan’, ‘Manjul Ramayan’ or ‘Tulsi Ramayan’. The mention of Shabri’s low origin does occur in ‘Adhyatm Ramayan’. But it does not say anything about Ram’s eating the plum she offered, after tasting it herself first.
    In ‘Ramacharit Manas,’ the following reference to Shabri occurs in ‘Aranya Kand’. When Ram steps into Shabri’s hut, she is reminded of Sage Matanga’s prediction that Ram would one day visit her hut. Seeing the two brothers (one is dark and the other is fair) with lotus-like eyes, long arms, matted hair and adorned with garlands, Shabri fell at their feet Overwhelmed with love and devotion, she could not utter a word. Instead she prostrated at their feet again and again. Then after washing their feet and offering them honourable seats, she brought lot of fruits and roots for the distinguished guests.
    It becomes clear from this that the question of Ram’s taking fruit tasted by a Shudra woman does not arise. Moreover, the Shastras do not put any restrictions on accepting fruits and roots etc. from low caste people. Therefore, by accepting the fruit offered by Shabri, Ram neither antagonised the Shastras nor did he do anything radical.

 

This being the fact, there are people who claim that in Hindu scriptures, Shudras are treated with equality and love. But apparently those who claim thus have either not read the scriptures properly, or want to keep the Shudras in eternal subjugation, or dare not raise a voice against the inhuman attitude of the Shastras, or want to interpret this discriminating attitude as friendly.

The post Caste and Racial Discrimination appeared first on VedKaBhed.Com.

]]>