Friday 3 December 2021

Śambuka-Bashing — or The Confluence of Brown Racism and Casteism among the Hate-Rightists Masquerading as Hindus or Hindutvites

 

 

Śambuka-Bashing — or The Confluence of Brown Racism and Casteism among the Hate-Rightists Masquerading as Hindus or Hindutvites

Shrikant G. Talageri


Hindus are the most abused and reviled people on earth today. As I pointed out in my last blog (on "Hindutvawatch…"), the powerful armies of leftist wokism (or should I call it woke leftism) who straddle the expanse of the cyber-world as well all the most powerful channels of media and academia today, and hold the power to ostracize and persecute to the nth degree all those who seem to deviate by even a centimeter from the lakshman rekhas that they have set out for discourse on any and every subject under the sun (the massive international demonization campaign against the writer J K Rowling in recent times for making a statement which these totalitarian gurus found politically incorrect as per their guidelines is a prime example of their gargantuan power), and who pretend to stand against hate-speech and hate-ideologies of every kind, have only one major exception/exclusion in their long list of hate-ideologies to oppose: viz. anti-Hinduism. Hate-ideologies targeting Hindus (i.e. Brahmins, Hindus, Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindutvites) and hate-speech reviling Hindus (to repeat: Brahmins, Hindus, Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindutvites) are the only fully permissible forms of hate-ideology and hate-speech, and they are not only permitted and permissible, they are compulsory and mandatory. In fact, the more intense and vicious the hate ideology and hate-speech directed against Hindus (…), the more "liberal" the hate-speaker is to be deemed, as per the consensus!

But this article is not about these vicious anti-Hindu leftist "liberals", it is about their rightist counterparts among the vicious rightist Hindu extremists in India. Let me point out here, to begin with, that I have repeatedly in my writings stressed that I am not a Rightist. Rightism and Leftism are two of the three vertices of the political Ideology-Triangle: the third vertex is (in the Indian context) Hindutva, which is neither Right nor Left. In my article "Leftists and Rightists", I showed this in the form of a diagram or graph as follows:

 

IDEOLOGIES

TYPOLOGY

INSPIRING MOTIVES OR

CHARACTERISTICS

CLAIMED AND

ACTUAL AIMS

Hindu Nationalism

 

 

Sāttvik

 

Elevating Ideology

 

ETHICS

1.Truth.

2.Justice.

3.Humanitarianism.

Claimed:

Cultural Justice.

Socio-Economic Justice.

 

Actual:

SAME

 

Rightism

Rājasik

 

Expansive Ideology

← →

 

MATERIALISM

1.Greed.

2. Lust for Power.

3. Exploitation.

Claimed:

Cultural Justice.

 

Actual:

Economic Exploitation.

Leftism

Tāmasik

 

Degrading Ideology

 

 

DARK EMOTIONS

1. Hatred.

2. Terror.

3. Anarchy.

Claimed:

Socio-Economic Justice.

 

Actual:

Cultural Hatred.

 

And, in that article ("Leftists and Rightists") I expressed the difference as follows:

"As far back as 1978, in an unpublished article written by me in a notebook (during the days of Janata Party rule, when I was in college) based on my observations of the proclivities of the "Hindu" politicians of the day, I had defined the three categories of ideologies in India as:

1. Leftism: claiming to fight for socio-economic justice while actually being a front for Hindu-haters.

2. Rightism: claiming to fight for Hinduism and Indian culture and heritage while actually being a front for the forces of socio-economic exploitation and obscurantism.

3. Hindu Nationalism: actually fighting for both Hinduism and Indian culture and heritage as well as for socio-economic justice.

Now, 41 years later, I still stick to this classification".

Therefore, I am as aware of the vicious Rightist elements masquerading as "Hindutvites" as I am of the vicious Leftist elements arraigned against Hindus, Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindutvites. Which is why my list of overt and covert enemies, ill-wishers and haters include not just the vicious Leftist elements, but also the vicious Rightist elements: those who function in the name of Hinduism/Hindutva only for the sake of votes and electoral victories or in pursuit of vicious socio-economic agendas (primarily obscurantism, misogyny and casteism). The Rightists and Leftists know that their main adversaries are those who stand for Hindutva; and hence, even as they preserve the outward drama of conflict with each other, their main targets are always those who are working for Hindutva, and both these elements coordinate their activities to strengthen each other and weaken Hindutva interests.    

Why am I writing all this now?

It is because of a recent trend that I have noticed — no, "recent" is the wrong word: this trend has always been there, but has intensified recently with the increasing power of social media and political gangsterism: the trend of Rightist troll armies attacking, in perfect coordination, those who are genuinely working for Hindutva. And these attacks are becoming more and more openly Rightist in their very clear demonstration of their racist, casteist or misogynistic motivations.

And the particular trigger for this article is a troll-campaign taking place in the last few days, directed against Koenraad Elst, which was brought to my notice by a well-wisher.

I will, for reasons that should be clear from the context, divide this article into two-sections:

 

A. Brown Racism and Koenraad Elst.

B. Obscurantism Disguised as Hindutva.

 

A. Brown Racism and Koenraad Elst.

Like all societies/people under siege, Hindus have produced their fair share of Quislings who cooperate with their attackers, and at the same time also of people who hate those "others" who come to their support. George Orwell (in his book "Down and Out in Paris and London", 1933) wrote: "A man receiving charity practically always hates his benefactor — it is a fixed characteristic of human nature; and, when he has fifty or a hundred others to back him, he will show it". Likewise, there are indeed certain types of Hindus who feel nothing but resentment of and hatred towards "outsiders" who come to their support in their civilizational battle for survival, and in recent times this hatred has come out in full force against Elst as the Trolls gather together for attack in Cyber Space.

 

Koenraad Elst has been the foremost "westerner" who has fought the ideological war for Hindus in recent memory, and because of his very erudite work in every field of Hindu ideological studies (history, religion, politics, culture) where he has adopted an objective stand sympathetic to the Hindu Cause, he has been ostracized in most western academic circles where anti-Hindu Leftism is the rule. The result of his deep and exhaustive intellectual work for Hindus (I should point out at this point that all the intellectual presentation of the Ram Mandir Case during the whole of the Ayodhya controversy by the Hindu side, including the VHP, was prepared by Elst), and the punishment he has had to face for all this on his home turf in the west has been the total disruption and destruction of his family life, his health and his financial situation.

Does all this endear him to Hindus?

Yes, it has indeed endeared him to all thinking Hindus, who have the greatest respect and affection for him and for his contribution to the Hindu/Indic Cause.

But two other characteristics of Elst which have earned him the respect of these thinking Hindus but also the unremitting hatred of certain more vicious sections among the Rightist elements masquerading as ardent Hindus/Hindutvites are:

1. His frankness and outspokenness, and his tendency to call a spade a spade, often without bothering to sugar-coat his words and opinions.

2. His lack of political shrewdness, or rather his inability to indulge in the necessary sycophancy and obsequiousness to be able to flatter the "Hindu" powers that be into giving him their political, institutional and economic support and backing.

One can have differences of opinion on particular issues, but this vicious hatred comes out to the fore on all the social media platforms where the trolls congregate. And the particular Rightist tendency that comes to the fore in this context is that of Racism: in fact what we may call Brown Racism.

 

The present attack (the one on Twitter that I referred to above) seems to have started with this tweet:

That this "thread" should have started with the reference to the story of Śambuka in the Valmiki Ramayana is significant: the story in the text is based on a casteist viewpoint or perspective according to which people of "lower" caste have no right to perform certain religious acts. It is not surprising that the obscurantist Rightist elements posing as representatives of Hinduism/Hindutva should find this particular story so pivotal in their attacks on Elst: he represents the modern or present-day Śambuka, a person who has no Right or Authority or Sanction to do certain things in respect of Hinduism or any Hindu issue. He is not a "lower caste" person, of course, but he is that other present Rightist "Hindu" category of Persons-Who-Have-No-Right: the "Outsider". In this particular thread, one "Hindu" tweeter talks of Elst's "European Christian upbringing", and another calls him an "indecent ignorant mlecha" who does not deserve respect:


This is of course nothing new: "Hindus" have been abusing Elst for years for being an "Outsider", a person who "has no adhikāra"  (it is fashionable to try to sound Sanskritic/Hindu/Indian, while making such statements, by using the phrase "adhikāra") to speak on Hindu or Indian issues, a "white-skinned foreigner", and many other things, some of them even more abusive.

So let us be very clear: Elst has every right to express his opinions and conclusions. He cannot be an "Outsider" under any circumstance in this matter. Those who call him an "Outsider" to Hinduism/India and therefore as not having the right to criticize or undertake critical analysis of Hindu/Indian issues are straightaway and outright insulting not only Elst but also the two greatest Father Figures of Hindutva Ideology: Sita Ram Goel and Ram Swaroop (and also others like Arun Shourie, apart from countless other Hindu scholars, writers and speakers of the present day, many of them featuring prominently on youtube for example, who are indulging in critical analysis of Islam and Christianity). All these revered scholars have indulged in deep and extremely path-breaking analyses of Islam and Christianity (the texts, history, theology, personalities, etc.), but, using similar brainless and biased logic, they can also be dismissed contemptuously as "Outsiders" to the two religions who have no "right" or "authority" to criticize them.

Let us be clear about another point: anyone — I repeat, anyone — has the right to criticize something which is wrong. When criticizing something in Hinduism, anyone, not just Hindu-friendly people like Elst, but anyone, can criticize whatever is wrong. Any question about their "right" to do so arises not on the grounds of their caste, race, nationality, gender, language, religion, skin-color, or any other personal criterion of this kind (including even their political ideology). It arises on the grounds of their degree of neutrality, objectivity, sincerity and honesty in such matters: the leftists (including western or Indian "academicians") and others of their ilk (Christian missionaries, casteist elements, etc.) do not have any right to criticize anything in Hinduism because they criticize (as I put it in an earlier article) the tiny molehills in Hinduism, while failing or refusing to criticize, or stonewalling debate on, or even defending, whitewashing or glorifying, the massive mountains in Christianity and Islam.

Koenraad Elst's highly critical studies and writings on Islam and Christianity, even more than his pro-Hindu writings and activities, give him the right to criticize things in Hinduism. The same goes for people like Dr. Ambedkar, Hamid Dalwai, and even people like Salman Rushdie when they criticize Hinduism — but not (and I don't care for political correctness) people like Jyotiba Phule (whose social zeal I will respect, but not his criticism of Hinduism since this criticism was accompanied by unwarranted praise and adulation for Christianity).

So let me say once again: Hindutva has no place for Brown Racists and Obscurantists who militantly promote casteist and misogynistic ideas.

With that, let us turn to the subject of the Valmiki Ramayana, or specifically the story of Śambuka in it, which was apparently the subject which caused this particular bout of name-calling and abuse on Twitter in the last few days.

 

B. Obscurantism Disguised as Hindutva.

The twitter thread above started with criticism of Elst's statement that "the story of Shambuka was not in the Ramayana previously but later added by people of casteist mindset". This criticism seems to imply either that the story of Shambuka is not an interpolation, or that it does not represent a casteist mindset, or both. But strangely, on going through the whole thread, it actually reveals other dimensions: here the critic additionally seems to imply that casteism was there throughout the Ramayana and even throughout the Rigveda. And then at the same time he seems to be trying to show how this casteism was in fact justified!

So far as I can see, this represents multiple aspects, propositions or arguments which require separate examination:

 

1. First, let us see whether the story of Śambuka represents discriminative casteism or not. The story (in the Valmiki Ramayana, Uttara Kanda, 73-76) is as follows:

One day, an aged Brahmin, carrying his dead child in his arms, appears at the gate of Rāma's palace, wailing and bemoaning the premature death of his son. According to him, it was not natural for a Brahmin boy to die, since neither he nor his son had committed any sins. Hence it could only be that his son died, in the kingdom of Rāma, because Rāma was guilty of allowing some serious sins to go unpunished within his realm. Rāma is disturbed by this accusation, and he summons ten pious Brahmins to find out what sin could have been committed within his kingdom. Their verdict is that the only sin which could have resulted in the untimely death of a Brahmin boy is the performance of the practice of "penance" within the kingdom by a Shudra, since a Shudra in that age (the dvāpara yuga) is not permitted to perform penance, and if he does so then it results in such incidents taking place in the kingdom. Hence they advice that Rāma should investigate the matter and punish the Shudra guilty of this sin.

Rāma immediately picks up his bow and arrows, and his sword, mounts his golden chariot, and sets off on a tour of his kingdom to find and punish the penance-performing Shudra. After touring his kingdom west, north and east, he finally comes to the banks of a lake beside a mountain in the southern part of his kingdom and comes upon an ascetic performing austerities.

Rāma asks the ascetic his caste and the purpose of his austerities, and the ascetic truthfully answers that he is a Shudra named Śambuka, and that he is performing austerities in order to attain heaven. Immediately, Rāma unsheathes his sword and cuts off the head of the ascetic. As soon as the ascetic is beheaded, all the Gods in heaven shower Rāma with a rain of celestial flowers and express their gratitude for having saved them from the ignominy of having a Shudra enter heaven. Rāma requests the Gods to bring the dead Brahmin boy back to life, which they joyfully agree to, and Rāma later returns to his kingdom after an extended tour of the ashramas of various rishis where he is praised for his glorious deed of slaying the Shudra Śambuka, and returns to his kingdom amidst acclamations from one and all.

This is the whole of the story of the slaying of Śambuka as it appears in the Valmiki Ramayana. The only point of the story is that a person belonging to the Shudra caste is performing a religious act (for the purpose of attaining heaven, an objective which the story tells us is disapproved of by the Gods who do not want a Shudra entering heaven), and that Rāma cuts off his head for this act. That this represents Casteism with a capital C, and nothing else, should be clear to the meanest intelligence.

Nowhere in the text is there any other angle by which the slaying of Śambuka can be justified on grounds other than casteist ones. And yet so many Hindus see the need to justify the story with hyper-imaginative fabrications. At the height of the Ayodhya movement, I remember reading an RSS publication (in the local RSS karyalaya) which justified this story by claiming that Śambuka was planning to attack heaven with an army, kill Indra, and occupy the throne of Indraloka, and it was to prevent this that Rāma killed him: the book also showed a picture of this Śambuka, in royal attire with a gleaming sword held aloft, as he set off for heaven at the head of an army!

This particular critic of Koenraad Elst (in the twitter attack under discussion) tells us that Rāma killed Śambuka not because he was a Shudra but because he was a "demon" performing dark rites which caused the deaths of several children:


But the story is definitely casteist, and here the phrase "Brahminical" would appear to be partially correct, since the stories are meant to promote exclusive powers and rights to Brahmins: however the word is not actually appropriate as a criticism for either Hinduism or Hindutva or even for members of any Brahmin caste (I am one myself), since this tendency to allot special powers, privileges and rights to the priestly classes is sadly an intrinsic part of religious cultures all over the human world: from the Abrahamic religions to the Pagan ones (tribal as well as Civilizational).

And that this kind of blatant casteism is regularly extolled in the Uttara Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana is proved by the even more blatantly casteist incident of the dog (Valmiki Ramayana, Uttara Kanda, 59-60):

One day, a dog stands howling continuously outside the gate of Rāma's palace, in quest of justice. Rāma sends Lakṣmaṇa out to find out what the problem is, and the dog relates that a Brahmin named Sarvathasiddha, angry at not having received any alms for the day, saw him lying in the middle of the road and vented his anger on the dog by striking it on the head with a stone. The wounded dog was now at death's door and wanted justice from the king. Rāma is nonplussed and asks his Brahmin advisers (presumably the same gaggle of advisers who decreed the death sentence on Śambuka) what punishment can be given to the Brahmin for his misdeed. The advisers give a single-line judgment which is the first of two laws that this story is intended to establish: they declare that "a Brahmin is exempt from punishment".

Rāma then asks the dog himself as to how he can give justice to him as the Brahmin is exempt from punishment. The dog gives him a strange reply: he tells him that the Brahmin should be appointed as the Head of the Kalanjava monastery within the kingdom, since the Head of the monastery had recently passed away and his successor was yet to be appointed.

As the head of the Kalanjava monastery was a highly respected and coveted post, everyone is astonished that the dog asks that the Brahmin be favored in this way rather than be made to face any punishment, and they ask the dog for an explanation.

The dog reveals that he himself was the head of that monastery in his earlier life. He was an ideal and pious head, and discharged all his duties selflessly and diligently without committing any lapses. In spite of that, there may have been some inadvertent lapses in his conduct which resulted in some shortcomings in his hospitality towards Brahmin guests visiting the monastery, and as a result of those inadvertent shortcomings he was born as a dog and had to suffer so much.

The dog points out that this Brahmin Sarvathasiddha was impious, harsh and cruel, and given to uncontrolled anger. So, as the head of the monastery, he would commit plenty of deliberate lapses in the discharge of his duties and in his treatment of the Brahmin guests; and as a person depriving Brahmins of their legitimate rights to hospitality, he would descend to the lowest hell in his next life, and suffer much more tortures than he (the dog) himself had suffered.

This second law, or moral of the story, is that even the smallest lapse in hospitable treatment of a Brahmin guest can lead anyone (even another Brahmin who is otherwise exempt from any punishment in this life) to suffer the most horrible punishments in his next life. So: be very careful never to allow even the smallest shortcoming in the hospitality offered to a Brahmin guest that could leave him anything less than fully satisfied. (This moral clearly forms the basis of countless Epic-Puranic stories where fulfilling the Brahmin guest's wishes — even the most bizarre and unjust wishes — constitutes the highest virtue, such as the stories of Anusūyā, Cilaya, Hariścandra, etc.). And the only way in which a Brahmin can lay himself open for punishment (even if only in the next life) is by committing such a "sin" against another Brahmin.

 

So,  yes: the Uttara Kanda of the Ramayana is indeed a storehouse of some weird casteist stories (of which the Śambuka story is one) concocted solely for the glorification, enrichment and super-empowerment of Brahmins.

 

2. Secondly, are these stories in the Uttara Kanda interpolations or not?

Needless to say, the question of whether these incidents (the two named above for example) are stories, or they are actual historical events which actually took place in the time of Rāma, should not be a subject of serious discussion because things like children dying because someone is performing austerities and coming back to life when the person performing austerities is killed, or wounded dogs talking and giving advice as to the punishment to be meted out to their assailant, cannot be historical events which actually took place in the life of a historical Rāma (except in the eyes of extremely credulous religious believers). They are clearly stories.

So anyone who accepts that there was a historical Rāma and that the text records his history (and I assume the Hindu critics of Elst belong to this category) should naturally accept that there was an original historical text which recorded only the actual historical events in the life of Rāma, and (unless they feel that the whole of the Ramayana is a fabricated story) that such stories as the two above cannot have been a part of that original historical text and are therefore by definition interpolations added later into the text. So it is intrinsically self-contradictory that Koenraad Elst's twitter critic above (like so many other staunch "Hindus") insists that they are not interpolations instead of insisting that they are!

And it is intrinsically strange that these "Hindus" object to the idea that the story of Śambuka was added later by people with a casteist mindset, and prefer to believe that it is Rāma, rather than later interpolators, who had a casteist mindset. And further, they believe that by thus indicting Rāma under the guise of defending his casteist act, they are proving themselves to be good Hindus, and the person denying that Rāma performed this grossly casteist act is someone to be abused for showing an anti-Hindu bias!

It must be first understood that this question of "original" vs. "interpolated" in respect of the Valmiki Ramayana involves many chronological questions: the date of the actual Ramayana events, the date of the original Valmiki Ramayana text, and the possible dates of various real or interpolated parts within the text as we know it. Those Hindus who insist that the Valmiki Ramayana is an original text without any interpolations, and that it was written by a Valmiki who lived during the actual lifetime of Rāma, land themselves in a real soup, because it is clear from many important things mentioned in the Valmiki Ramayana (even apart from the language of the text, which many of these patriots will insist cannot be a criterion because Linguistics is a "western" ploy) that the text of the Valmiki Ramayana (or definitely many particular parts within that text) clearly represents a situation which prevailed in a post-Mauryan period around 300 BCE or so.

Now no-one — not even the most sceptical, conservative or hostile historian or scholar — dates the events in the Ramayana (leaving aside those who simply reject the whole saga as a myth or story rather than history) to the post-Mauryan period. Right from those who date the Ramayana events to lakhs of years ago to those who date them to a post-Mahabharata period (taking the Mahabharata events themselves as 900 BCE or so), no-one would accept that the actual events constituting the core story of the Ramayana took place in a post-Mauryan period.

But the indications in the text (to name only the most vital ones) show that the text itself definitely points to a composition or finalization in a Mauryan or post-Mauryan period:

1. The text names Yavanas (Ionian=Greeks). That the word Yona/Yavana refers to the Greeks, who were very well-known in North India in Mauryan and post-Mauryan times is beyond doubt: among other things, an Ashoka edict refers to a historical Greek king Antiochus as the Yavana king Antiyoka, and the Yavana Jataka (an astronomical text) uses many technical words borrowed from Greek astronomy. Many Hindus doggedly refuse to accept the references to Yavana and Romaka as references to Greeks and Romans, and insist that the words refer to two ancient Indian tribes/peoples/kingdoms unconnected with Greeks and Romans.

2. But the text also names Cholas, Pandyas and Keralas/Cheras as southern kingdoms: now it is a historical fact that these kingdoms came into existence around Mauryan or post-Mauryan times, and postulating that they (or different kingdoms unconnected with the historical kingdoms but with the same names) also existed at the time of the actual Ramayana events (centuries or millenniums earlier) would be extremely special pleading.

3. Most significant of all, the text (in the Ayodhya Kanda speech attributed to a courtier of Ayodhya named Jabali) also refers not only to Charvaka but also to the Buddha. Now even the most ardent Hindu revisionists of Indian historical chronology do not place the Buddha before 2000 BCE, and certainly no traditionalist would place the Buddha chronologically before Rāma. So it is clear that this is a reference which even the strongest protagonist of the no-interpolations-in the-Valmiki-Ramayana school would not be able to deny as an interpolation of the post-Mauryan period.

So (although rational thinking is never to be expected from those with religious biases or agendas) it is impossible for anyone to deny that the text of the Valmiki Ramayana contains interpolations. And once that is admitted, the identification of the exact parts which are to be treated as interpolations is a matter of scholarly debate or (to many) of wishful thinking.

 

Certainly, no-one can adopt an anti-interpolation stand claiming to be Hindus and accuse those who identify interpolations as somehow working against Hindu interests, since it is the former indeed who:

1. Readily believe that Rāma was a casteist and a performer of indefensible acts.

2. Readily accept the originality of fairy-tale stories within the text, laying the case open for the entire text (if it is to treated as original and bereft of interpolations) to be treated as an extended fairy-tale.

In short:

1. The reality of the chronological facts about the Ramayana and Mahabharata texts is that they were set down in writing, from the traditional oral histories of the two events, around Mauryan and post-Mauryan times (roughly around 300 BCE) and contain all kinds of interpolations and additions which had accrued in the original accounts till the time they were first set down in writing, and, in the course of time many more additions and interpolations continued to be made in the texts in many layers before their form was standardized (at some time after the first setting down in writing).

2. The actual events took place much earlier: the Mahabharata took place somewhere in the mid-second millennium BCE. The Ramayana took place earlier than that, but it cannot be pinpointed how much earlier since, unlike in the case of the Mahabharata (whose area is the same as the area of the earliest Vedic texts, and therefore it is possible to roughly arrive at its chronology by comparative analysis with those texts), the Ramayana events took place far to the east of the earliest areas represented in the Vedic texts (mainly in eastern UP and Bihar) and there is therefore no solid evidence to pinpoint their chronology.


3. Is casteism prevalent in all parts of the Ramayana text?

For some reason, the tweeter (kaundabhatta) in his thread on the subject insists that casteism is found in all parts of the text and not only in the Uttara Kanda. Even if that is so, that still does not refute Elst's statement that the Śambuka story (and for that matter the story of the dog) are later interpolations in the text by later writers (obviously Brahmins) deliberately inserted with a casteist agenda in mind.

Scholars studying the internal chronology of the Ramayana have been unanimous in identifying the Uttara Kanda as well as certain parts of the (first) Bala Kanda as interpolations. However I will not bother to waste my time here trying to demonstrate why they are right, not because this kind of classification by outsider "mlecchas" makes insider "Hindus" see red, but because this is a distinction which really serves little purpose as a distinction in the historical analysis of the text because both the main text as well as these interpolated parts of the text (only more so) are post-Mauryan. It is somewhat like the distinction between Maṇḍala 8 (of the Rigveda) as a whole and the Vālakhilya hymns within that Maṇḍala: the Vālakhilya hymns are definitely later additions into Maṇḍala 8, but both these 11 hymns (VIII.49-59) as well as the other 92 hymns (VIII.1-48, 60-103) in Maṇḍala 8 belong to the New Rigvedic period (albeit two different sub-periods within that period), and the distinction does not help in any particular way in the historical analysis of the Rigveda.

Now the fact is that the Mauryan and post-Mauryan periods saw a major churning, particularly in North India, with the arrival of, and temporary important historical role played by, barbaric as well as civilized foreigners like Huns, Scythians, Persians and Greeks. This led to a sort of identity issue in Indians which probably led to a fossilization of caste consciousness and endogamy —  certainly this is also apparently what genetic studies show: that the intermixing of people of different castes  started grinding to a halt around 300 BCE or so, and this probably was also the time that each individual castes (which were till then practically tribes, as affirmed by Dr. Ambedkar, with all four varṇas found within every tribe) started identifying or being identified with a particular one of the four varṇas.

Before this, the Vedic texts, and the older Puranic stories, show a free crossover of individuals from one varṇa to another. But this period (which also saw the first setting down in writing of the Epics and Puranas, and the composition of the dharma sutras and other texts) led to powerful castes (originally tribes) gradually transforming the originally non-hierarchical, non-hereditary and non-discriminative varṇa system into a hierarchical, hereditary and discriminative system with themselves at the top of the ladder.

Therefore while the main text of the Ramayana was composed in the earlier parts of this transformative period and shows milder strains of this transformation, the interpolated parts like the Uttara Kanda (which came later on in time) show the increasing stranglehold of the beneficiaries of this transformation, with the Brahmins (now at the top of the hierarchy) introducing casteist stories, rules and procedures of the kind discussed above to consolidate the hierarchical, hereditary and discriminative nature of this new varṇa system.

I know all this will anger large sections of militant "Hindus", but that cannot be helped.

 

4. Is casteism also prevalent in all parts of the Rigveda?

Weirdly, the tweeter (kaundabhatta) who started this whole discussion also insists that casteism (in the present sense of the term) is found in the Rigveda, and not only in the much-maligned, and admittedly late, Puruṣa Sūkta (Rigveda X.90), but in all parts of the Rigveda:


Let us start with the very late Puruṣa Sūkta: this is the only place in the whole of the Rigveda where, in one verse, X.90.12, all the four "castes" (i.e. varṇas) of the present day are mentioned together. But it is also the only place in the whole of the Rigveda which mentions the two "lower" of the varṇas: Śūdra and Vaiśya: those two words do not occur anywhere else in the entire Rigveda (which would be strange indeed if this four-"caste" system was existing throughout the period of the Rigveda). Therefore there has been a universal scholarly consensus that the varṇa system with the four present-day "castes" came into existence very late in time in the closing period of the composition of the Rigveda.

However, kaundabhatta is not restrained by facts: he locates the word kṣatra ("vigor" or "power") and its derivative form kṣatriya ("powerful ruler/king"), both together occurring a total of 8 times in the whole of the Rigveda, rejects the translation of the first word as "vigor"/power, and treats the derivative form as a reference to the second of the four varṇas. It does not matter to him that if it really referred in the Rigveda to the second of the four varṇas, it would have been found in X.90.12 as well: however, in that verse, which refers to the four varṇas together, the second varṇa is called Rājanya! And this word Rājanya, like the words Śūdra and Vaiśya, is not found anywhere else in the whole of the Rigveda.

So the sole word Brāhmaṇa, which is used in X.90.12 for the first of the four varṇas, and is found throughout the Rigveda as a word referring to priests/rishis becomes the sole evidence for "proving" that the four-varṇa system (which he interprets as "casteism") is found throughout the Rigvedic period!

And then, to add insult to injury (or is it the other way round?), kaundabhatta (in the rest of his twitter thread) "proves" that the caste-system existed in the Rigvedic period by borrowing a polemical device from the AIT scholars: in the absence of the word Śūdra in the rest of the Rigveda, he picks up references to dāsa and dasyu in the Rigveda and treats these words as actually referring to the fourth Śūdra varṇa! As I have repeatedly dealt with the meanings of these words in the Rigveda (see for example my blog article "Āryas, Dāsas and Dasyus in the Rigveda"), I will not waste my readers' time or my own by quoting his tweets on this matter or my above blog article in reply to his tweets.   


A word about the four varṇas in the Puruṣa Sūkta: while this hymn does indeed refer to the four varṇas (in a ritual hymn which describes a giant Primordial Man sacrificed by the Gods, from whom came into being the four divisions of a functioning human society), this sole reference nowhere indicates the hierarchical, hereditary and discriminative system which started evolving in post-Mauryan times. Nowhere does it indicate that any one of the four varṇas is inferior to another one, or that these four divisions are hereditary, or that discrimination against any one of the four varṇas forms a part of the narrative. It simply shows the four natural divisions of any human society in the world (tribal or civilizational): every society in the world has a priestly class, a ruling class, a commercial class, and the others, the working classes who constitute the other sections of society which make the society function smoothly.

Much is made of the fact that the fourth varṇa, Śūdra, is supposed to have emanated from the feet of the Primordial Man, as if this automatically shows contempt. But the connections are very logical: no human society can exist, function and progress without these four parts of human society:

a) the intellectual or thinking classes (who represent the mouth which guides any society with wisdom, and scientific and scholarly thought, emanating from the mouth),

b) the military classes (who represent the arm which rules the society and protects it from external enemies),

c) the trading and commercial classes (who represent the thighs or the forward movement of the society in material terms),

d) the other working classes (who represent the feet, on the strength of whose actual work rests the entire edifice of any functioning society).

 

The notion that the reference to feet is automatically an offensive reference represents a hyper-sensitiveness not warranted by anything in the hymn or anything anywhere else in the Rigveda or Vedic literature. No part of the body (and certainly not the feet which bear the entire burden of the body and without which the body would collapse) is inferior to another, except to those determined to deliberately misinterpret or misrepresent with ulterior motives. Two verses after the reference to the Śūdra emanating from the two feet, we are told in X.90.14 that the Earth emanated from the two feet: is this also a degradation of the Earth or an indication of the inferiority of the Earth?

A fable occurs in many ancient texts, emphasizing the equal importance of each and every part of the human body, the version in Aesop's tales is as follows: "One day it occurred to the Members of the Body that they were doing all the work while the Belly had all the food. So they held a meeting and decided to strike till the Belly consented to its proper share of the work. For a day or two, the Hands refused to take the food, the Mouth refused to receive it, and the Teeth had no work to do. After a day or two the Members began to find that they themselves were in poor condition: the Hands could hardly move, and the Mouth was parched and dry, while the Legs were unable to support the rest. Thus even the Belly was doing necessary work for the Body, and all must work together or the Body will go to pieces".

https://fablesofaesop.com/the-belly-and-the-members.html

Strangely, in some versions of the fable, it is the feet, considering themselves one of the most important parts of the body, which first raise the objection against the stomach. The wikipedia article on "the Belly and the Members" tells us "There are several versions of the fable. In early Greek sources it concerns a dispute between the stomach and the feet"!

So, it is time to abandon narrow-minded and bigoted interpretations of the Puruṣa Sūkta, and to learn to view it from the point of view from which it was composed; that of a mystical-philosophical creation-myth of a functioning human society.

For the purpose of this article and the subject of this article, it is sufficient to note that the present-day hierarchical, hereditary and discriminative version of social divisions which comes to mind at the word "casteist" was totally unknown in the period of the Rigveda.

I will end the article at this point.

 

APPENDIX Added 7-12-2021

THE SANGH/BJP AND BROWN RACISM/CASTEISM:

I should get out of the habit of responding to tweets and of adding appendices to completed articles. But at the moment I am doing both, in this case because it is possible that a juxtaposition of sentences may have given rise to a wrong impression in the above article.

The following tweet has been brought to my notice:


I don't mind being accused of "Sangh/BJP Bashing" (though the term is not right), because in my opinion the BJP Pariwar (this is the correct phrase, since the BJP is not part of a Sangh Pariwar, but the Sangh is a part of the BJP Pariwar, in reality if not in historical chronology) is more dangerous for Hinduism and Hindutva than any secular formation. This Pariwar can continue every single anti-Hindu measure of the secularists (I refuse to discuss the token political gestures of quasi-Hindutva which they pretend to make on occasion, especially before any elections), and initiate many more (and more deadly) ones, and the "Hindutva"-brigades which rise up in protest if the same things are done by secularists will largely ignore, defend, whitewash or even glorify these anti-Hindu acts (or make token protests but tell us "T.I.N.A. to the BJP"), which I find much more dangerous than the actions of the open enemies of Hinduism and Hindutva.

Also, in the socio-economic sphere, I think the BJP Pariwar is more harmful to the interests of the common man than almost any other political formation. Also, Corruption: Electoral Bonds; Anti-Nationalism: the 2018 Amendments to the Foreign Contributions Regulations Act; etc. etc.

However, in my above article I have not claimed that "the trads are attack dogs of the Sangh" as claimed in the above tweet.

It just happens that both the "trads" and the BJP Pariwar are both Rightists as per my definition given above. However, in the social media there may be as many "trads" who are anti-BJP because of the anti-Hindu acts of the BJP (or, occasionally, because the BJP as a political party with political compulsions is practically unable to cater to certain obscurantist demands), as there are "trads" who are pro-BJP because of their (wrong) perception that the BJP is pro-Hindu. So there is really no direct equation between "trads" and the BJP Pariwar.

In the matter of  casteism, in fact, the record of the Sangh Pariwar (here I must use this term, excluding the BJP which has done its fair share of casteist politics) is very good: it is actually less caste-ridden than all other political formations. Its problem is that it encourages anti-intellectualism and frowns on intellectual activities and serious non-juvenile thinking on any subject and prefers unintellectual and juvenile jingoist discourse: Guru Golwalkar apparently even discouraged swayamsewaks from reading books ("Just take part in Sangh shakha activities and everything will automatically fall into place" is their motto — somewhat like Maharshi Mahesh Yogi who claimed that if a certain percentage of the population practiced TM all crime would vanish from society).

And in the matter of Brown Racism, the BJP Pariwar as a whole is, on the contrary, quite in awe of White Racists.

So the "trad" armies in the social media are not necessarily "Sangh/BJP" people, though some of them may happen to be so.

Yes, the BJP Pariwar (as befitting its Orwellian Animal Farm nature) has "attack dogs", but they are not concerned with religious or historical issues, only with Political, Electoral, Party, and Leadership/Hero-worship issues.


24 comments:

  1. Talageri, living in america I look at India and wonder why people are sensitive to caste. Other cultures had a "caste" system Wurope had nobles vessels and peasants, intact French revolution was based on this unbalanced hierarchy. So does China. So did the Vikings have a social hierarchy system.there must be a reason that makes the idea of caste sensitive in India.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is like saying why is corruption a big issue in india since there is corruption in USA, Europe and everywhere else, there is obvious difference of scale and entrenchment.

      Delete
  2. Excellent write-up, will be waiting for the second part.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. But I had not intended a second part as such since this article was in reaction to certain tweets and the matters arising from those tweets.I am sorry if the last line was misleading. I will of course always express my views on anything and analyses of any facts whenever necessary.

      Delete
  3. I don't know about 'obscurantism', because that word is thrown around against anybody who says that the past was better in at least some respects than the present is and that there are things in the past worth considering as relevant to present circumstances. Similarly, the word 'misogyny' is thrown at anyone who rejects third wave feminism and states the biological reality that women and men are not the same. This is not to say that they are necessarily inferior to each other always; women are superior to men in some respects, inferior in others, and equal in all remaining respects.

    But yes, I've seen many of these bigoted 'Hindutva' warriors online and am thoroughly nauseated by them. Just like the woke left thinks they're superior to others in every possible way because they are 'woke', these people in their ignorance and arrogance think that they are superior to everybody in every possible way just because they became immune to political correctness. But unfortunately, this immunity to political correctness seems to have led them to adopt a pretentious (as seen from their Sanskrit usernames) and would-be alpha male stance, and treating with downright contempt anyone who disagrees with them.

    I guess this is a very good example of the wise adage 'The opposite of one bad idea is usually another bad idea'. I wish our side had more mature people. Dr. Elst has faced such attacks from 'Hindutva' warriors for a long time, so he's used to this (If I remember correctly, he was called a 'Vatican stooge' and a 'Cambridge Analytica' agent by such idiots a couple of years ago). If anything, Hindus should be grateful to him for continuing to stick up for us despite such abuse from both Hindus as well as our opponents. I sometimes wonder how many potential friends of Hindus turned into bitter Hindu haters because of such behaviour by these 'Hindutva' warriors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "I don't know about 'obscurantism', because that word is thrown around against anybody who says that the past was better in at least some respects than the present is and that there are things in the past worth considering as relevant to present circumstances."

      Obscurantism refers to attitudes that seek to prevent knowledge and truth from coming to the fore of society. That seek to "obscure" knowledge and truth.

      Yes, in my western context, it often refers, and rightly so, to people using religion or traditional ideologies to deflect any criticism and any discussion, and to twist the mind of people in ways that brush intellectual issues and debates under the carpet. Covering them with a blanket of willful ignorance.

      Obscurantism is not about "defending traditional values". Far from it. But it may well can be about instrumentalising these values in order to avoid facing arguments, reason and truth. It's in the end, about hiding behind traditional values to even avoid bothering defending these same traditional values on intellectual grounds, and using social pressure to pretend you've won the argument. It's a bit like pretending to having won a war when you've deserted, and convincing enough people that you really won it... when you did not.

      In my western context, obscurantism refers to religious BS, to marxist BS, to woke BS, to far right BS, you name it. It may also refer to blind apologetics of science or "progress" if they seek to immunise themselves from criticism.

      In the discussion I witnessed on Twitter with Elst that led me here, that attitude that says "foreigners do not have authority to comment on X or Y or Z" is precisely the kind of attitude that seek to immunise discourse to criticism. To protect the turf of the "obscurantist".

      We have the same people in the West. We call them racists. When we want to be rude. (I try to avoid that terminology, but it does rather often apply, more than I'd care to admit).

      Delete
  4. People should read Upanisads which are full of allegories paraboles metaphors.
    These tales are misinterpretations. Ram the divine (not human) only chops maya ego bonds depicted as head in art literature sculptures. Sanskrit dictionary says mardan, samhara is spiritual cleansing, progress. Devis devatas are divine powers not literally humans. All is mentioned clearly in Upanishads.
    Ramayan is tale of surya bija mantra in action. All are sadhakas interacting with divine incl Ravan and team who are Siva level tapasvi hence not villian since chittashuddhi is prerequisite.
    Sita wasn't kidnapped. She, as sadhaka got carried away by powers of Lam bija mantra depicted as Lamka. Laxman Rekha is threshold of consciousness. Just like threshold of tapasvis who experience divine powers described as Narasimha Vitthal et al.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You do realise that this sort of 'see the esoteric message behind X' could be used to (and rather, is used to) gainsay criticism of, and justify, the troublesome aspects of Islamic and Old Testament theology?

      Delete
  5. Shrikantmaam, could you recommend a good book on the real history of the Hindu caste system? I ask because the conventional wisdom as peddled by academia, media and popular culture tends to exaggerate both in quality and quantity the negative aspects of the caste system on the one hand, and the 'trad' version of the story, on the other, will give you the impression that while caste was real, there were never any caste abuses, atrocities, discrimination or prejudice.

    I find the second extremely hard to believe, as humans are social primates, and thus some form of inequality sets in at some point in all human societies. I don't think Hindu society is special enough to be immune to this all-too-human phenomenon. But you are one of the few people on the Indic side who do not believe in indulging in hagiography of any sort, hence I'd like to read any resources that you can suggest.

    ReplyDelete



  6. Thank you for this article, sir. As with most things you say, I am pretty much in agreement with it all. Please allow me to add a few comments though, not to disagree per se but only to add:

    1. The primary problem, as I see it, is simply of respect and courtesy. Elst sir and/or anyone else is of course allowed to say whatever they want, and others are allowed to disagree, critique it. The problem begins when we have the disgusting scenario of Elst sir being abused, called a mleccha etc.

    2. But who is abusing this way? It's the general detritus of twitter, of random ignoramuses who anyway don't know what they are talking about. They are the lowest common denominator.

    3. And have you noticed? These are the ones Elst sir retweets, gives attention to and highlights- as if they are the representatives of opposition to his views- but that's not the case.

    4. There are several people who counter him with full decorum- who oppose not him but the content of his tweets. These are ignored, and no counters are offered to them. It begins to seem like western historians putting up Oak as an example of Indian history, instead of you or Kak sir- for example. Does this not seem dishonest of western scholars, or give impression that they are not looking to engage with genuine critique and/or opposition? I myself have asked him questions on his reading of caste, or on his critique of the Hindu inability to understand time-depth. These are cases of simply talking to a wall. It seems that while he loves to highlight and retweet idiots- painting them as some kind of general image of modern Hindus- he is unwilling to engage with those looking to have a more nuanced discussion, or even ask questions with open humility to understand.

    Anyone who is even remotely honest and informed is well aware of Elst sir’s contributions to the “Hindu cause” as we may call it, and given how active I am on twitter, I haven’t seen such individuals abuse or demean him. Yes- you rightly call out this fad of “adhikāra” and on this I am completely with you. On this very Sambuka issue, Ashish Dhar countered Elst sir on twitter, and then a few days later had a video talk with him on other issues- so to me this exemplifies the situation we should be highlighting. There are always going to be idiots online who have no idea what they are talking about, but whatever we think this “Hindu side” is, is bound to be full of disagreements and differing views.

    I will confess, a lot of the tonality and wordage in Elst sir’s tweets seems designed to rile and provoke, and a fair bit of it is condescending and patronising. He is of course permitted this as well, but if he begins to receive some back in same vein I do not think that’s ground to complain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may be right on some points, but:
      1. In this case, none of the tweets I referred to were retweeted, or replied to, by Elst himself, so far as I know. They were brought to my notice by someone.
      2. In this case, it was not in reply to any alleged riling or provoking on the part of Elst: the abuse was simply because he stated that the Shambuka incident was an interpolation. And, as I have made clear throughout the above article, this was a subject on which I had much to say on its various ramifications and aspects, so I also took the opportunity to immediately write this article.

      Additionally, I would be interested to know the exact points on which he has failed to respond to serious questions. If I go by the nature of "serious" questions that I myself am repeatedly asked to answer, although I have repeatedly dealt with them in great detail in my books and articles, it is possible that he may regard some of these questions as deliberate heckling. But could you be more specific?

      About caste, I have taken the opportunity in this article itself to point out the difference between the four-varna system in the much-maligned Purusha Sukta and the system as it became later (gradually more and more) after 300 BCE or so and remains to this day.
      About the Hindu inability to understand time-depth, this seems to be a hopeless subject for discussion, because for many Hindus it is practically a matter of life-and-death dogma.

      Delete


    2. Right, sir. Thank you for explaining.

      On what I'm defining as serious questions (with my bias, I concede), 2 examples are these:

      1. Elst sir said that recently he's been quite interested in the pre-Vedic period culture of India- one that likely dispersed with the early Druhyus. I asked what I think is a pertinent question- what are our sources for identifying this culture? No response.

      2. He said that Bharadvāja was the rajguru of Bharata. I asked what does this mean for maṇḍala 6, where Bharadvāja is purohita of Divodāsa. No response.

      I will at least claim on my behalf that I take great care to ask questions with courtesy and humility. There are times I’m aware the issue at hand may have been previously dealt with, in which case I also apologise for appearing ignorant/underinformed. Heckling is not my way, especially not to scholars I understand have far greater knowledge and understanding than I possess.

      Yes- on the Shambuka incident itself I am not equipped to comment at all, and did not engage on this on Twitter either. But I did see legitimate responses to him by a few handles, none of them abusive, and none of them responded to. On the Puruṣa Sūkta, your explanation here of course is great and no contest from me. I have written about this myself, and am always quick to point out to people that the four varṇas in Puruṣa Sūkta, by definition, are of the same jāti. To begin with, it allows me to highlight that we cannot discuss these things with the singular word of “caste.” They have to be discussed through native terms.

      Perhaps I have much to learn and understand here, but there are several Paurāṇika stories that show opposite cases than to the Shambuka one. If Rāmāyaṇa is indicative of Indian society, at some points in time, then so are the Purāṇas. There is a very similar story to Shambuka case regarding our very own Māndhātṛ in the Purāṇas. His kingdom faces a drought, and the sages advise him that he must kill a Śudra who dares to perform rituals. Māndhātṛ refuses- saying that anyone has a right to do so, and if the Śudra performs rituals then he is arguably a brāhmaṇa. Turns out this was a test and the sages agree, they offer him a more innocuous solution and the rains return. What’s the time-depth here, what dogmas are we aligned to in reading this story? I think these complexities reveal that anyone who deigns to speak of them with some kind of final and patronising authority opens themselves up for attack. There are “trads” who fall in this bracket, but I daresay that Elst sir willingly takes the same route many a time.

      Delete
    3. When you say "there are several Pauranika cases that show opposite cases than to the Shambuka one", what does it prove about the Shambuka story being or not being an interpolation? Does it not in fact emphasize the fact that all these stories depend on the views of the writer/interpolator of each particular story and therefore cannot be real incidents in the life of Rama? And does it not in fact show again what I am saying: that we must judge each story on its own merits and not try to present all-covering explanations for such stories?

      About the questions you asked Elst, it reminds me of the questions which the Vetala asked Vikramiditya in the stories: when Vikramaditya finally did not know the reply, he simply did not answer. I also receive endless questions like this (about how to identify the pre-Vedic culture, etc.) on topics where there is no material data available, where it is impossible to answer without the help of a crystal ball or some telepathic powers.

      About Bharadvaja and the ancestral Bharata, it is clear from the hymns that Bharadvaja (perhaps the eponymous one, or maybe again a descendant of the eponymous Bharadvaja) may have been the priest of the ancestral king Bharata, who is referred to as "Bharata of old" in VI.16.4. The eponymous Byharadvaja cannot have been the priest of Divodasa, since the association of the royal and priestly families go back many generations as per the references in the hymns. In Book VI, it is (as I have pointed out in my books) the tradition for almost all the composers to write in the name of the eponymous rishi, a practice which changed only in the New Books (from Book V).

      Delete
    4. Indeed, sir- I make the same point. Bringing all-covering authority or explanations for such stories does not make sense, but Elst sir is not free of this error.

      I agree- no material data is available. This is precisely why I asked the question. It was Elst sir who said he is interested in the pre-Vedic culture, I simply asked where to solace such interest.

      On Bharadvāja, yes, I agree. I simply wanted to know what Elst sir said- and no, he is not obliged to answer every tom and harry such as myself. I concede that.

      Thank you for your responses.

      Delete
    5. @Amrit

      If you are interested in pre-Vedic history of India, refer to Puranas.

      What we call as Vedic period is only the later phase of history as narrated in Puranas (or what comes after Bharata).

      So logically, the Puranic history before Bharata is pre-Vedic. That would mean story of Svayambhu Manu and his descendants, Deva-Asura Wars, stories related to Shiva, stories about Vivasvasvata Manu and his successors who dispersed across India and beyond, legend of Parashurama - all belongs to pre-Vedic period.

      But hard work is in finding out history from allegories that has been disguised as fables and presenting them in a chronological and coherent account.

      Delete
  7. One thing I noticed is that Leftism (Communism as well as its bastardized forms as well as its socialist relatives) far from being an enemy of capitalism represents HIGHEST FORM OF CAPTIALISM!
    What does Leftists do once they seize power in a country?
    They confiscate all private wealth and makes it State property. Now state is controlled by Leftists and in effect, all wealth is now in the hands of Lefties!
    Not only wealth, but entire population in reduced to slavery by repression, mass murder and propaganda - making them slaves of the State (which is owned by Leftists!).
    But strangest part is that even enemies of Left misses the fact that all talk of liberation and human rights by Left is no more than a ruse to grab all the wealth and reduce humanity to slavery. Perhaps it is due to our habit of paying less attention to action and more attention to words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly, which is why I say genuine Hindutva is the third vertex of the triangle with Leftism and Rightism-Capitalism as the two other vertices (both of which represent injustice).

      Animal Farm is supposed to have been written first to expose the Communist system (and Voice of India books by Ram Swaroop and Sita Ram Goel also exposed this situation about Communism), although it could also be applicable to some extent to the "Rightist" ideologies like Nazism. In India today, the constantly metamorphyzing "Hindutva" of the BJP Pariwar is like the Communism ideology in its opportunistic doublespeak and actions.

      Delete
    2. Reality is that India after August 15 1947 changed from a British colony to a Leftist colony. Whether BJP or Congress or Janata Party, all of them are following Leftist vision in all spheres of government.

      We are ruled by Communists and we are not even aware of it! But this is to be expected from a people (Hindus) who for last 800 years have proved to be persistently incapable of accepting reality or learning from mistakes.

      Delete
  8. Shrikant ji, I came to know about your existence and your works by reading Dr. Elst's books and blogs.

    And what surprised me is that he does his best to bring public attention to your work on Indo-European Question and Rigvedic chronology.

    And this what really touched me - despite being an academic, he advocates for promoting work of a non-academic person like yourself and that too without expecting anything in return.

    As a rule, academics (especially the social science ones) are cads.

    They always does their best to discredit those outside their exclusive club or those who do not follow their line.

    But here you have a professor like Dr. Elst who does the exact opposite! It speaks volumes about his greatness as a human being.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Similar to lingusitc analysis of rigveda, is it possible to do lingustic analysis of mahabharata, ramayana , purana, upanishada texts to find out INTERPOLATIONS? especially can one IDENTIFY pre-paninian texts from post -panini texts? Would this help find out MANUSCRIPTS that are older and without interpolations compared to one that are polluted by INTERPOLATIONs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Apart from Vedas, what other texts are pre-paninian origin, and still maintain the original format, even after transmission for more than two millennia? Can linguistic analysis be applied to arnyakas/ upanishada/ atharvaveda/ extant archaic mahabharata versions etc ?

      Delete
  10. Yavanas WERE NOT DIRECT REFERENCES TO "GREEKS", "Yavana" as a term was a catch all vague generalization term that referred TO ALSO ARABS-IRANIANS AND MIDDLE EASTERN PEOPLE IN VARIOUS CASES TO OTHERS!!! "Greeks" DID NOT INFLUENCE INDIC ASTRONOMY IN ANYWAY SHAPE OR FORM!!!

    "Greeks" never referred to themselves "Greeks" and "Greeks" themselves were not homogenous singular monolithic ethnicity, so once again that debunks the notion that Yavana exclusively refers to "Greeks"; secondly "Greeks" in Central Asia and Northern Afghanistan were originally deportees and prisoners of originally the Persian-Achaemenid empire whom lived in marginalized ghetto environments there, were nobodies-inferiors and were getting subsumed by the greater Asiatic-Iranic and other populations living next to them there.

    They had ZERO ZERO ZERO influence or clout on Indic astronomy, and "Greeks" were notorious plagiarists and copiers as the entire "Greek" pantheon of gods to other architecture was either entire plagiarized and copied from ancient Egypt to Persia-Assyria etc etc and others.

    Really disappointed that Mr.Talegeri would be this ignorant and just clueless to take a colonialists fabricationist position, please stick to IE spread scenario history please and not later history anything because so far Mr.Talegeri seems to not have such strong forte when it comes to anything but IE spread subject!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am happy you were able to relieve yourself of some of the bile sloshing around inside you by abusing me (although thank you for accepting that I have a strong forte in respect of the IE spread subject). But bile-relief does not excuse irrationality.

      It really makes no difference whether every reference to "Yavanas" refers only to Greeks or not (even Muslims were later sometimes called Yavana). Every reference in Hindi to "Firangi" does not refer only to French people but to all Europeans, and every reference to "Turks" does not refer only to Turks but to all Muslim foreigners and invaders. The point is that the word is derived from the name of the Ionian Greeks,, and therefore any reference to Yavanas in the Epics cannot be from a period before the Mauryan era.

      It really does not matter how much the Greeks supposedly plagiarized or copied from others, nor how insignificant they were. The fact is that certain major aspects of (post-Vedic) astronomy were definitely borrowed by Indians from the Greeks. No amount of lying or blustering about "colonialists fabrications" can change this fact.

      Delete