09-03-2005, 05:22 PM
<b>No caste for converts
-Sandhya Jain </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The recent Supreme Court judgment discouraging additions to the list of
religious minorities and the Central Government's failure arrive at a
consensus over the Women's Reservation Bill provide an occasion to
debate the meaning of caste and religion, and their usage as instruments of
reservation benefits.Â
From the time of the British Raj, caste has been used to berate Hindu
society and has acquired negative connotations in public discourse.
Though political parties canvass mass support through caste affiliations,
political discourse labels it illegitimate. Even constitutional
affirmative action for underprivileged castes is used to put upper caste Hindu
society in the dock, though efforts are on to extend the use of caste
for political ends. At present, organized religious minorities have
launched a virtual crusade for the benefits of caste-based reservations. We
need to examine to merits of this quest in terms of the genesis of
caste and its applicability to those who have seceded from the Hindu fold.
Caste, the Portuguese name for the Hindu jati and gotra, is simply the
organizing principle of ancient Indian society. It was the means by
which diverse groups in society were integrated and mutual conflicts
resolved, on the matrix of an evolving dharma. Both caste and dharma
emphasized heredity because ancestry (gotra) was imperative as the spirits of
the ancestors had to be invoked in all social sacraments (samskara) to
establish the individual's worthiness to receive the sacrament.
Though apparently restrictive, all groups accepted the heredity
principle and "created" ancestries and fabled origins as they progressed in
life. The Mundas of Chotanagpur, who were originally organized into
exogamous septs called Kilis, changed their Kilis into Gotras. Thus Sandi
Kili became Sandil Gotra and Nom Tuti Kili evolved into Bhoj-Raj-Gotra.
The Koch tribes of Assam metamorphosed into Bhanga-Kshatriya or
Rajbansi, and claimed affinity with Rajputs.
Caste or jati is rooted in the tribal concept of gotra. Sociologists
have traced the origins of the Barabhum royal family in eastern India to
the Bhumij of the ancient Gulgu clan. The early forts of the Barabhum
rajas were at Pabanpur (near Bhula, burial ground of the clan) and
Bhuni, where the royal (tribal) goddess Koteshwari had her sacred grove. But
when the Bhumij chiefs claimed Rajput status, they shed their tribal
affiliations by renouncing the clan ossuary at Bhula. A similar process
was discerned among the tribal Bhumij of Baghmundi and the Manbhum
Bhumij. The Bhumij are organized in patrilineal exogamous clans (gotras)
affiliated to ancestral villages where the clan ossuaries are located.
Gotra is thus the organizing principle of tribal societies and the key
constituent of Hindu social identity.
Given this reality, the question arises whether individuals and groups
who have renounced their Hindu identity should get the benefits of a
caste identity. Today, amidst mounting evidence that SC/ST reservations
in educational institutions are being surreptitiously cornered by
non-Hindus, some are asking why individuals who reject their Hindu identity
should retain their caste names and thus mislead society.
It is well known that both Christianity and Islam systematically wiped
out the traditional religion and culture in the lands where they
spread. Christianity humbled Europe through untold brutality, and the Pope's
talk of Europe's "Christian roots" cannot disguise the truth that the
religion is a cruel imposition of only 2000 years. As for the genocides
against the native peoples of North and South America, Australia, and
the enslavement of Africa, the less said the better. Islam, similarly,
triumphed by wiping out traditional communities (including Christian)
where it became dominant.
My point is that both these religions have shown zero tolerance for
even vestiges of the old religions in regions where they came to have
sway. Both have periodically launched movements against "heretics" and
resisted the liberalization of dogma. While Islam today has the tabligh
movement to cleanse Muslim adherents of old practices of their former
faith traditions, Christian clergy are engaged in battle with the modern
god called "secularism."
Tolerance of, or co-existence with, old faith identities is therefore
ruled out in both religions. In India, they do not even respect the
right of the Hindu community to remain the majority community, and persist
with aggressive attempts at conversions, vitiating the atmosphere all
over the country. It therefore makes little sense to permit so-called
Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims to garner reservation benefits
intended to overcome social disabilities of Hindu society. If erstwhile Dalits
find that Christianity and Islam mistreat them, they must approach
appropriate judicial forums for redressal of their grievances or come back
to the Hindu fold.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court has rendered a sterling service by
discouraging the trend towards listing distinct religious groups as "minority
communities." Indeed, as Swami Dayanand Saraswati pointed out in his
reaction to the judgment, there are sound reasons why we should reject the
classification of minorities on religious grounds. What is happening is
that in India transnational religions with enormous numerical, economic
and political clout are claiming privileges as minorities.
India's religious minorities have access to the enormous resource base
of their global co-religionists, yet seek benefits that should go to
more needy and deprived sections. The Vatican in Rome caters to the
interests of Catholics, while the World Council of Churches in Geneva looks
after Protestants. The 2.1 billion-strong Christian community
constitutes one-third of the world population, and its clout and reach extends
beyond national boundaries, as does that of Islam. Adherents of these
transnational faiths, therefore, cannot legitimately be designated as
minorities.
The Supreme Court rightly feels that classification of groups as
minorities is "a serious jolt to the secular structure of constitutional
democracy." Not only would it generate "feelings of multi-nationalism in
various sections of the people," but it would hinder national
integration. The judgment should serve as a stepping stone in the direction of
abolishing the category of minority in the constitution. The educational
and cultural rights of all groups can be protected by equal laws for all
educational and cultural institutions - it is time to level the playing
field.
EOM
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
-Sandhya Jain </b>
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->The recent Supreme Court judgment discouraging additions to the list of
religious minorities and the Central Government's failure arrive at a
consensus over the Women's Reservation Bill provide an occasion to
debate the meaning of caste and religion, and their usage as instruments of
reservation benefits.Â
From the time of the British Raj, caste has been used to berate Hindu
society and has acquired negative connotations in public discourse.
Though political parties canvass mass support through caste affiliations,
political discourse labels it illegitimate. Even constitutional
affirmative action for underprivileged castes is used to put upper caste Hindu
society in the dock, though efforts are on to extend the use of caste
for political ends. At present, organized religious minorities have
launched a virtual crusade for the benefits of caste-based reservations. We
need to examine to merits of this quest in terms of the genesis of
caste and its applicability to those who have seceded from the Hindu fold.
Caste, the Portuguese name for the Hindu jati and gotra, is simply the
organizing principle of ancient Indian society. It was the means by
which diverse groups in society were integrated and mutual conflicts
resolved, on the matrix of an evolving dharma. Both caste and dharma
emphasized heredity because ancestry (gotra) was imperative as the spirits of
the ancestors had to be invoked in all social sacraments (samskara) to
establish the individual's worthiness to receive the sacrament.
Though apparently restrictive, all groups accepted the heredity
principle and "created" ancestries and fabled origins as they progressed in
life. The Mundas of Chotanagpur, who were originally organized into
exogamous septs called Kilis, changed their Kilis into Gotras. Thus Sandi
Kili became Sandil Gotra and Nom Tuti Kili evolved into Bhoj-Raj-Gotra.
The Koch tribes of Assam metamorphosed into Bhanga-Kshatriya or
Rajbansi, and claimed affinity with Rajputs.
Caste or jati is rooted in the tribal concept of gotra. Sociologists
have traced the origins of the Barabhum royal family in eastern India to
the Bhumij of the ancient Gulgu clan. The early forts of the Barabhum
rajas were at Pabanpur (near Bhula, burial ground of the clan) and
Bhuni, where the royal (tribal) goddess Koteshwari had her sacred grove. But
when the Bhumij chiefs claimed Rajput status, they shed their tribal
affiliations by renouncing the clan ossuary at Bhula. A similar process
was discerned among the tribal Bhumij of Baghmundi and the Manbhum
Bhumij. The Bhumij are organized in patrilineal exogamous clans (gotras)
affiliated to ancestral villages where the clan ossuaries are located.
Gotra is thus the organizing principle of tribal societies and the key
constituent of Hindu social identity.
Given this reality, the question arises whether individuals and groups
who have renounced their Hindu identity should get the benefits of a
caste identity. Today, amidst mounting evidence that SC/ST reservations
in educational institutions are being surreptitiously cornered by
non-Hindus, some are asking why individuals who reject their Hindu identity
should retain their caste names and thus mislead society.
It is well known that both Christianity and Islam systematically wiped
out the traditional religion and culture in the lands where they
spread. Christianity humbled Europe through untold brutality, and the Pope's
talk of Europe's "Christian roots" cannot disguise the truth that the
religion is a cruel imposition of only 2000 years. As for the genocides
against the native peoples of North and South America, Australia, and
the enslavement of Africa, the less said the better. Islam, similarly,
triumphed by wiping out traditional communities (including Christian)
where it became dominant.
My point is that both these religions have shown zero tolerance for
even vestiges of the old religions in regions where they came to have
sway. Both have periodically launched movements against "heretics" and
resisted the liberalization of dogma. While Islam today has the tabligh
movement to cleanse Muslim adherents of old practices of their former
faith traditions, Christian clergy are engaged in battle with the modern
god called "secularism."
Tolerance of, or co-existence with, old faith identities is therefore
ruled out in both religions. In India, they do not even respect the
right of the Hindu community to remain the majority community, and persist
with aggressive attempts at conversions, vitiating the atmosphere all
over the country. It therefore makes little sense to permit so-called
Dalit Christians and Dalit Muslims to garner reservation benefits
intended to overcome social disabilities of Hindu society. If erstwhile Dalits
find that Christianity and Islam mistreat them, they must approach
appropriate judicial forums for redressal of their grievances or come back
to the Hindu fold.
Meanwhile the Supreme Court has rendered a sterling service by
discouraging the trend towards listing distinct religious groups as "minority
communities." Indeed, as Swami Dayanand Saraswati pointed out in his
reaction to the judgment, there are sound reasons why we should reject the
classification of minorities on religious grounds. What is happening is
that in India transnational religions with enormous numerical, economic
and political clout are claiming privileges as minorities.
India's religious minorities have access to the enormous resource base
of their global co-religionists, yet seek benefits that should go to
more needy and deprived sections. The Vatican in Rome caters to the
interests of Catholics, while the World Council of Churches in Geneva looks
after Protestants. The 2.1 billion-strong Christian community
constitutes one-third of the world population, and its clout and reach extends
beyond national boundaries, as does that of Islam. Adherents of these
transnational faiths, therefore, cannot legitimately be designated as
minorities.
The Supreme Court rightly feels that classification of groups as
minorities is "a serious jolt to the secular structure of constitutional
democracy." Not only would it generate "feelings of multi-nationalism in
various sections of the people," but it would hinder national
integration. The judgment should serve as a stepping stone in the direction of
abolishing the category of minority in the constitution. The educational
and cultural rights of all groups can be protected by equal laws for all
educational and cultural institutions - it is time to level the playing
field.
EOM
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->