Lectures on the Cārvāka/Lokāyata Philosophy: Some Common Misrepresentations concerning the Cārvāka/Lokāyata Examined

Ramkrishna Bhattacharya

a. Did the Carvakas Refuse to Admit Inference?

In the Indian philosophical context, besides the issues of rebirth, after-life and other-world, the instruments of cognition (pramana) are considered to be of seminal importance. The Carvaka/Lokayata is generally branded as a philosophical school which accepted perception as the only means of knowledge. But there is enough evidence to show that, in addition to perception, the Carvkas also admitted inference as a valid means of cognition insofar as it was based on perception and hence verifiable by perception. As to verbal testimony, analogy and other instruments of cognition accepted by various schools, the Carvakas refused to accept them. We shall now delineate on this issue.

All college textbooks and most of the popular digests and handbooks of Indian philosophy describe the Cārvākas as pramāṇaikavādin, i.e., they recognize no other instrument of cognition except one, viz., perception. Vācaspatimiśra (ninth/tenth century), a non-dualist Vedāntin, satirizes the Cārvāka in the following way:

Moreover, even beasts, with a view to obtaining the beneficial and avoiding the harmful, move towards a field green with soft, fresh grass and leave one full of dried grass and thorns. The Nāstika, not knowing what would lead to his own good or what would lead him into harm, is more beastly than a beast. In this matter (of determining a thing as desirable and undesirable), which is the basis of an effort for obtainment (pravṛtti) or an effort for avoidance (nivṛtti), and can only be known by inference; perception is not capable of doing anything. (Bhāmatī, sub-commentary on the Brahmasūtra (3.3.53). See Debiprasad Chattopadhayaya and Mrinal Kanti Gangopadhyaya ed. Cārvāka/ Lokāyata. 1990. New Delhi: Indian Council of Philosophical Research. p. 243).

               

Many other Brahminical and Jain philosophers have similarly condemned the Cārvākas as pramāṇaikavādin. But such a branding is not only wrong but betrays some design as well. Let us take the following instance. 

To prove that the Cārvākas declined to admit inference as a valid means of knowledge Śāntarakṣita and Jayantabhaṭṭa cite several verses. All of them, however, are taken from Bhartṛhari’s Vākyapadīya. Śīlāṅka, Vācaspatimiśra and Vādidevasūri too follow them. Now Bhartṛhari was a staunch Vedist. He did not believe in any other means of knowledge except verbal testimony. Both perception and inference were unacceptable to him. Yet the opponents of the Cārvāka prefer to cite his view as if it corresponds to the Lokāyatikas’. If there were any aphorism denying the validity of inference in the Cārvākas’ base text, why did the antagonists all quote Bhartṛhari and then set out to refute the Cārvākas? One has the impression that Śāntarakṣita and others simply use the Cārvāka as their Śikhaṇḍin: the butt of their attack was really Bhartṛhari or the school of grammarians, although they never declared it in so many words (For details see Ramkrishna Bhattacharya. 2009/2011. Studies on the Cārvāka/Lokāyata. Firenze: Società Editriche Fiorentina, London: Anthem Press, Chapter 8 pp. 109ff).   If any school of Indian philosophy is to be branded as pramāṇaikavādin, it is the school of grammarians, not the Cārvāka. 

The fact is that the Cārvākas did admit inference along with perception as an instrument of cognition. Let us have a look at the evidence. 

Kamalaśīla in his commentary on Tattvasaṅgraha, verses 1481-82, quotes a line: “Purandara however says, ‘The Cārvākas too admit of such an inference as is well-known in the world, but that which is called inference [by some], transgressing the worldly way, is prohibited [by them]’.” Soon after the publication of this work (1926) Satkari Mookerjee (The Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux. 1935. Calcutta:  Calcutta University. pp. 368-69) referred to this sentence as did Surendranath Dasgupta (A History of Indian Philosophy. 1940. Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass. Vol. 3, pp. 536, 539). 

Debiprasad Chattopadhyaya (In Defence of Materialism in Ancient India. 1989. New Delhi: People’s Publishing House. pp. 52-54), too, devotes a section on “The Evidence of Purandara”. 

Dasgupta also refers to Vādidevasūri, who says that, according to the Cārvākas, “Since in the supposed supra-sensuous transcendent world no case of the hetu [reason] agreeing with the presence of its sādhya [inferable property] can be observed, no inductive generalization or law of concomitance can be made relating to this sphere.” 

M. Hiriyanna too notes that the opponents of the Cārvāka may even have misrepresented its tenets:

Thus it is commonly assumed by the critics that the Cārvākas denounce reasoning as a pramāṇa; but to judge from the reference to it in one Nyāya treatise, they seem to have rejected only such reasoning as was ordinarily thought sufficient by others for establishing the existence of God, of a future life, etc. (Outlines of Indian Philosophy. 1932. Bombay: George Allen & Unwin (India). 1973 reprint. p. 188)

Hiriyanna observes: “Such a discrimination in using reason alters the whole complexion of the Cārvāka view. But this is only a stray hint we get about the truth. What we generally have is a caricature.” 

The Nyāya treatise Hiriyanna mentions is Jayantabhaṭṭa’s Nyāyamañjarī, the first printed edition of which appeared as early as 1895. None before Hiriyanna, however, noticed this hint. (Hiriyanna in his turn also failed to notice the passages in the works of Kamalaśīla and Vādidevasūri which provide categorical assertions – not mere stray hints – regarding the limited validity of inference admitted by the Cārvākas). 

Besides Kamalaśila, Jayanta and Vādidevasūrī, Sarvamata-saṅgraha, an anonymous and undated digest, presents the Cārvāka view more elaborately:

This rice, because of its riceness (annatva) satisfies hunger as it did yesterday – such an inference as this is included there (sc. in the Lokāyata Śāstra), due to its being rooted in perception. The fruits of worldly goods (abhyudaya) and summum bonum (niḥśreyasa), the matter of religion and brahman as well as the Veda are devoted to the pretersensual, hence are not (to be admitted as) means of knowledge – this is the conclusion. (Sarvamatasaṅgraha. 1915. T. Ganapati Sastri ed. Trivandram. p. 15)

Ratnaprabhā a Jain philosopher, too, seems to echo Purandara when he writes:

The Cārvākas, however, contend that they admit inferences which are of practical utility, such as the inference of fire from smoke, and deny only those which deal with such supernatural matters as the heaven, the unseen power (apūrva) which generates in a next birth fruits of acts done in a present life, etc. etc. (Commentary on Vādidevasūrī’s Pramāṇa-naya-tattvālokālaṃkara. 1967. Hari Satya Bhattacharya’s trans. Bombay: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal. p. 504)

                                                                                         

Guṇaratna, another Jain philosopher, repeats the same view:

The Cārvākas admit the validity of inference which tend to facilitate the daily activities of ordinary people (loka-yātrā-nirvahaṇa-pravaṇaṃ), such as the inference of fire from smoke, etc., but they never admit the validity of extraordinary inferences which seek to establish the heaven, merit and demerit, etc. (Tarka-rahasya-dīpikā, commentary on Haribhadra’s Ṣaḍ-darśana-samuccaya. 1914. Luigi Suali ed. Calcutta: The Asiatic Society. p. 306; Cārvāka/Lokāyata p. 273)

Last but not least, Sukhlalji Sanghvi, the eminent Jain scholar of our times, prefers to follow this view. The Cārvāka, according to him, belongs to the side which accepts the dominance of the senses (indriyādhipatya-pakṣa) as opposed to those who reject the senses (in favour of the mind or the self), those who admit the dominance of both the senses and the mind (or the self), and those who admit only the dominance of the Vedas. (Sukhlalji Sanghvi. 1941. ‘Tattvopaplavasiṃha, Cārvāka Darśana kī eka Apūrva Grantha’ in Tattvopaplavasiṃha of Jayarāśi Bhaṭṭa. 1987. Varanasi: Bauddha Bharati. pp. 23-24. The article first appeared in Bhāratīya Vidyā, 2 (1) and included in Sanghvi’s Darśana evaṃ Cintana. Vadodora: Gujarāta Vidyāsabhā) 

In fact, the distinction made between two kinds of inference – one confined to the ways of the world (laukika), and the other relying on the scriptures or the supra-sensual (śāstrasiddha) – is the lasting contribution of the Cārvākas to Indian Logic. It is a sad commentary on the state of scholarship that the true Cārvāka view regarding inference has all along been distorted and wilfully misrepresented. Is it too much to expect that the writers of the twenty-first century will take note of these discoveries (not all of them very recent) and put an end to caricaturing the Cārvāka position? They should realize what S. Radhakrishnan, no friend of materialism, said long ago in relation to the verses at the end of Sarva-darśaba-saṃgraha, ch. 1: “A philosophy professed seriously for centuries could not have been of the coarse kind that it is here reported to be.” (S. Radhakrishnan. 1929. Indian Philosophy. London: George Allen & Unwin. Vol, 1. p. 283)

b. Were the Cārvākas Sensualists?

All that has been said above is enough, I hope, to dispel the notion that the Cārvākas were a happy-go-lucky lot and their sole aim in life was sensual gratification. Had it been so, all their opponents would not have dealt with them so seriously. The Cārvākas, of course, did not believe in the other-world and were not credulous enough to believe in the existence of two separate places called heaven and hell. So the opponents of the Cārvāka have portrayed them as immoral people preaching “eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die”. But none of the opponents quotes a single sūtra in support of such representation. Serious scholars like Richard Garbe and M. Hiriyanna noted long ago that such a (mis)representation has all the characteristics of a caricature.

Let us re-examine the sources onthe basis of which the Cārvākas have been branded as unrestrained hedonists. The only “evidence” that is cited is a verse found in Sarva-darśaba-saṃgraha.

yāvajjīvet sukhaṃ jīved ṛṇaṃ kṛtvā ghṛtaṃ pibet |
bhasmībhūtasya dehasya punar āgamanaṃ kutaḥ ||

While life remains, let a man live happily; let him feed on ghee even though he runs in debts; when once the body becomes ashes, how can it ever return again?

The same verse, however, is quoted in no fewer than thirteen sources both before and after the Sarva-darśaba-saṃgraha and almost everywhere the second hemistich reads nāsti mṛtyor agocaraḥ (nothing is beyond the scope of death). (For details see Ramkrishna Bhattacharya. Studies etc. Chs. 19 and 20) Whatever other variants there may be, nowhere does the second hemistich reads ṛṇaṃ kṛtvā ghṛtaṃ pibet, excepting in the Sarva-darśaba-saṃgraha. More interesting is the fact that Sāyaṇa-Mādhava himself quotes this verse twice in the same chapter, once at the beginning and again at the end. In the first instance he too quotes the second hemistich as nāsti mṛtyor agocaraḥ 

There is no proof to show that the verse under discussion originated from among the Cārvākas. It is first found in the Viṣṇudharmottara Mahāpurāṇa (108. 18-19). Here, too, the second hemistich reads nāsti mṛtyor agocaraḥ. The verse is attributed to King Beṇa who, both in this Purāṇa and elsewhere, is represented as a king who did not believe in the other-world. So he never cared to conform to the traditional duties of a devout person. There is no mention of any such term as Bārhaspatya or Cārvāka or Lokāyata in this context. In fact, most of the verses that are attributed to Bṛhaspati by Sāyaṇa-Mādhava and others are of doubtful authenticity.

 Whatever be the authenticity of the yāvajjīvet verse, the fact remains that this very verse has been generally taken to be the quintessence of the Cārvāka philosophy. But what the verse says in its original form is pretty simple. The message is quite clear: Since there is no rebirth, there is no use of practising austerity; death will overpower everyone anyway.

Let us look at the matter from another angle. Jayantabhaṭṭa has no soft spot for the Cārvākas. He controverts at some length the Cārvākas regarding the acceptance of inference as an instrument of cognition both in his philosophical work, Nyāyamañjarī and his allegorical play, Āgamaḍambara. He, however, refuses to accept the view that the Cārvākas prescribed any hedonistic doctrine. He rather believes that the Lokāyata “is only the assertion of the vaitaṇḍika (representing merely the destructive criticism of others); it is not really a body of precepts.” (Jayantabhaṭṭa. Nyāyamañjarī.  1982. Gaurinatha Sastri ed. Varanasi: Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishvavidyalaya. Āhnika 4. Part I. p. 388) 

A putative opponent is said to object: “But then there it has been (positively) prescribed: ‘Live in pleasure as long as you live’.” Jayanta brushes aside this objection. “No,” he says, “the fact being naturally established, a prescription in this regard becomes useless.” (Ibid.) In other words, the verse, according to Jayanta, does not contain any prescription at all.

It is also to be noted that other philosophers who have crossed swords with the Cārvākas have concentrated solely on epistemological questions. We may mention the names of Śaṅkarācārya, Śāntarakṣita and Prabhācandra who find fault with the Cārvāka doctrine on both epistemological and metaphysical grounds, but they never call it hedonistic or anything of that sort. There is no denying the fact that the Cārvākas did not abide by the Vedas, nor did they believe in the doctrine of rebirth and karman; they also refused to accept any statement based on inference unless it was supported by or based on perception. All these objections have been raised and contested from the Brahminical, Buddhist and Jain points of view. But in the philosophical works no charge has been levelled against them that involves moral depravity. It seems that a facile equation was made by the custodians of orthodoxy between the denial of the other-world and indulgence in sensual gratification. 

Such an equation is also met with in ancient Greece. Epicurus (341-270 bce) lived an austere life, as did Ajita Kesakambala (For details see Ramkrishna Bhattacharya. Studies etc. Ch. 3). Yet Epicurus was maligned as a glutton in subsequent Greek and Roman literature. Two modern English words, ‘Epicure’ and ‘Epicurean’, stand for “a person who takes particular pleasure in fine food and drink” (as given in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 2011). 

But did Epicurus not preach that pleasure was the highest good? Most certainly he did. But by “pleasure” he meant intellectual pleasure. In a letter to Menoeceus he made his position amply clear:

So when we say that pleasure is the end, we do not mean the pleasures of the dissipated and those that consist in having a good time, as some out of ignorance and disagreement or refusal to understand suppose we do, but freedom from pain in the body and from disturbance in the soul. For what produces the pleasant life is not continuous drinking and parties or pederasty or womanizing or the enjoyment of fish and the other dishes of an expensive table, but sober reasoning which tracks down the causes of every choice and avoidance and which banishes the opinions that beset souls with the greatest confusion. (Trans. A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley. 1987. The Hellenistic Philosophers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vol 1, p. 114.)

If, in spite of, such crystal clear exposition, the Epicurean view of pleasure could be so much distorted, what could the poor Cārvākas do? Not a single fragment of the Cārvāka sources contains any reference to pleasure or what the founders of that system meant by pleasure. Yet, thanks to some poets and playwrights and the writers of popular digests of philosophy (both ancient and modern), the word, cārvāka, has become synonymous with sensualism. Generations of men and women have been victims of this malign campaign. It is high time that we get rid of such a misconception.

This is the second of the three lectures delivered by Dr Ramkrishna Bhattacharya at the School of Habitat Studies, Tata Inst of Social Sciences, Mumbai delivered on December 2, 3 & 5, 2014.

Click here for Part I and Part II of the lectures.

Dr Bhattacharya taught English at the University of Calcutta, Kolkata and was an Emeritus Fellow of University Grants Commission. He is now a Fellow of Pavlov Institute, Kolkata.

Read More

Paris, Peshawar and Boko Haram - Religion, Politics and Violence

Ram Puniyani

Massacre of hundreds of children in Peshawar by Pakistani Taliban, the atrocities, murders, kidnappings by Boko Haram, an Islamist group and the attack on Paris cartoon magazine Charlie Hadbo killing 16, have occurred in a short span of few months. The popular perception of relationship between violence and Islam got a further boost. The phrase ‘Islamic Terrorism’, which was created by US media in the aftermath of 9/11, got a further shot in the arms. It got a booster dose of unprecedented level. The debates regarding freedom of expression, sharia laws, education for girls continued to be in the fore and columns after column either dissociating Islam from these mindless acts or boosting the perception of Muslims being in the business of merciless killing of their own kith and other with gay abandon; dominated the visual and print media (January 2015).

Logo of Boko Haram (Courtesy: Wikipedia)

These acts of terror kill the innocent people and Koran- chapter V verse 32- goes on to say that even if you kill a single innocent person, that’s like killing the whole humanity with an addition that if you save a single innocent person that’s like saving the whole humanity. Still the impression continues that currently most of the dreaded acts of terror are either done by Muslims belonging to this or that group or faction. Not too long ago we did witness acts of terror from the like of Andres Behring Brevik(Norway); the people like Ashin Wirathu (Buddhist Myanmar) were in the news for related actions. Swami Aseemanand is in jail and had confessed to the acts of terrorist violence not too long ago. Does one want to underplay the association of Islam-Muslims and acts of terror? Is one wanting to be in denial mode as for as violence by some Muslims is concerned? The teachings of Koran notwithstanding; there are some Muslims who take to the senseless killings in the most insane and cruel manner; is definitely true. The question is; are such acts due to Islam or Muslims as such? How does one understand the association of label of religion with acts of violence and terror?

At the cost of broad generalizations one can say that most of the prophets of religions focused on some issue of injustice in the society and called for peace, non-violence in their own historical context. The society was either based on pastoral or agricultural mode of production and tribal society-kingdoms were the main pattern of organization of society. The religions, which began as the moral edicts had added social and communitarian functions as well. Clergy became a major component of religions. The spread of the message of prophets also led to the institutionalization of religions, which added one more dimension to the broad umbrella provided by religion as a social phenomenon. These institutions built around religions became a very significant part of religions. Those controlling levers of power gradually allied with the religions’ institutions; and these institutions came to be patronized by the rulers. In turn the institutionalized religions legitimized the power of the king, landlord. King was presented as the son of God in different ways.

The alliance of King-Clergy was best seen in the alliance King-Pope. In other religions’ contexts it became Nawab-Shahi Imam, Raja-Rajguru for example. Currently in Pakistan and Myanmar; mostly; the institutions of religions and dominating army are hands in gloves times and over again. In our Maharashtra a popular Marathi phrase sums it very well Shetji-Bhatji (Landlord-Priest). With religions being institutionalized the collaboration between kings and clergy became the foundation of social system where the agricultural producers-craftsmen and other laboring masses submitted to the system created by the power of the king and ideology of the clergy. The words of Prophets went in to the background. The organization of clergy was varying, from the most organized in Christianity to the decentralized one in Hinduism, to Islam where there is no theological justification of clergy; nevertheless it is very much there.

Here comes the entry of power in the realm of religion. Kingdoms, many a times took the cover of religion for their goals of power. The kings expanded or wanted to expand their kingdoms and put this expansion project to annex other territories in the garb of Crusade, Jihad or Dharmyudh depending on the religion of the king.

The real use of religion’s identity, label, can be seen during colonial period. In most South Asian countries, particularly in India, we see that with the social, economic changes accompanying the introduction of transport, communication, industries and modern education during colonial period, there was a rise of new classes in the form of businessmen industrialists, workers and educated classes in particular. They formed secular organizations, with secular democratic Indian nationalism as the goal, like Hindustan Socialist Republican Army (Bhagat Singh), Independent Labor Party, Scheduled Castes Federation (B.R.Ambedkar) and the overarching Indian Nationalist Congress (Maulana Abul Kalam Azad and Mahatma Gandhi). In contrast to these rising classes the declining classes of Landlords and Kings pledged their loyalty to British and went on to form Muslim League and Hindu Mahasabha and later RSS with the agenda of Hindu nation. In the Religious nationalist organizations initially only kings-landlords were there later some educated and upper caste elite and still later sections of middle class also joined in. Here the communitarian identity of religion was exploited by declining classes to protect their social-political interests. When they said ‘my religion in danger’ they meant my political interests are in danger. They also indulged in ‘Hate other’ propaganda, leading to communal violence and later to the partition of the country.  Here we see religion being used as a cover, the religious nationalism to hide their feudal values of caste and gender hierarchy. Similarly the cover of Buddhism has been used by political tendencies in Srilanka and Myanmar.      

With the coming in of Imperialism, the rise of the US as the global super power dominated the global scene. Two superpowers USSR and USA were in the game of ‘Cold War’. US later planned and used Islam to counter Socialist block. It meticulously used a version of Islam for indoctrination the minds of youth. These youth were used to fight against the Soviet Russia and later the same indoctrinated youth came up and are tormenting the parts of the World. This phase of ‘religion as a cover of political goals’ begins with the formation of Israel in the aftermath of Second World War, the eviction of 14 lakh Palestinians away from their home and hearth. In due course to protect its oil interests the US-Britain nexus overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh Government in Iran. This ‘chain of events’ did lead to coming to power of Ayatollah Khomeini. At this point US media coined the word ‘Islam the new threat’. They meant that Socialism as the threat is in decline and Islam is coming up as the new threat to the free World. In its design to use all methods to crush the socialist block, US encouraged the Madarassas in Pakistan, where the Wahabbi version of Islam was introduced as a part of the training module designed in Washington. This version of Islam had already been the ally of the Saud family, in whose name Saudi Arabia stands. The Saud family came to use this version of Islam, Wahabbism to control the oil wealth of the region. US allied with Saud dynasty and also promoted Wahabbi version in the Madrassas in Pakistan. This version of Islam saw in every person disagreeing with their interpretation of Islam, as Kafir and killing the kafirs as Jihad. Jihad being the path to Jannat after death, jannat waiting with the rich reward of 72 virgins!

This heady mix of ‘brain washing’ did lead to Mujahedeen being transformed to Taliban-Al Qaeda and later giving rise to ISIS, the major menace in today’s world. Tendencies like Boko Haram draw their inspiration and support from the similar understanding of Islam. Time and again a large section of leaders of Muslims, many of the maulanas have issued the fatwa’s that terrorism is against the tenets of Islam, but what sticks in social awareness is the picture of Taliban or ISIS or Al Qaeda or Boko haram as the face of Muslims and Islam. No wonder one of the greatest philosophers of all the times Karl Marx, remarked very aptly that’ Ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class’, that’s the power of media at the service of the US, at the service of Corporate houses. Today the Islamophobia rules the streets and in some form or the other the religion which came to give the message of peace is perceived as the ultimate in prompting and indulging in violence.

Do we need to factor in the political forces, Kings of the past, the colonial masters of yesteryears and the ‘oil hungry’ global superpowers, behind promoting, abusing religions’ identity to understand the dastardly acts tormenting the humanity? The phrases joining any religion and terrorism are the biggest insult to the morality of religions to be sure!

Read More

What’s in Store for Kashmiris if BJP is Part of the Government?

Ram Puniyani

The recent (December 2015) verdict of Kashmir elections has been fractured, so to say. While PDP has emerged as the largest single party, the BJP is a close second with substantial percentage of votes. Interestingly BJP has secured most seats and major vote share from the Hindu majority Jammu region of Kashmir. Now the dilemma for the other parties, National Conference, Congress is in which direction to go as for Government formation is concerned.

BJP is a part of the RSS combine which wants to achieve Hindu Nation. It has become quite obvious during the last over six months of Modi Sarkar, that the associated organizations of BJP are actively communalizing the society along religious lines. Those making statements contrary to the values of Indian Constitution (Gita as the national book, those not sons of ram are illegitimate, Godse was a nationalist), the aggressive Gharvapasi campaign (Reconversion to Hinduism), opposing the film PK, on grounds that it promotes love Jihad, have made it amply clear that under Modi’s leadership, BJP patriarch, RSS, wants to make a fast transition towards Hindu Nation and in this direction the religious minorities and Indian Constitution’s values are its major target. What this agenda will give to the Kashmir as a state and Kashmiri people as citizens needs to be assessed.

One can briefly go through the troubled history of Kashmir to understand this. The Kashmir Maharaja’s decision was to remain independent and the likes of Pandit Premnath Dogra (Praja Parishad, the predecessor of Bhartiya Jansangh, the previous avatar of BJP) also opposed Kashmir’s merger to India on the grounds that Kashmir is being ruled by a Hindu king (Raja Harisingh) so why should it merge with secular India. Later Kashmir was attacked by Pakistani tribal, and the intervention of Indian army took place after the treaty of accession to India with article 370 coming to fore, are too well known by now.

The article 370 gave the special status to Kashmir, giving it autonomy in all the matters barring defense, communications, and currency and external affairs. RSS was totally opposed to it. One of the Hindu Mahasbaha leaders, Shyama Prasad Mookerji raised the flag of opposition to this treaty and demanded total merger of Kashmir in to India right away. During this time India witnessed the ugly face of communalism, in the form of murder of Mahatma Gandhi by a RSS trained pracharak and active worker of Hindu Mahasabha, Nathuram Godse. At the same time RSS–HMS made loud and aggressive noises against the Article 370. This led to a bit of rethinking in the mind of Sheikh Abdullah, who started saying whether he has committed a mistake by acceding to India, as the major premise of his decision was Secular India and these acts showed the erosion of secular values. In this phase of his thinking he was arrested on the charges of sedition and put in jail, leading to great amount of alienation amongst Kashmiris. RSS stuck to its guns and gradually under its pressure the clauses of autonomy started getting diluted. The major example was re-designating Prime Minister of Kashmir to Chief Minister and Sadar-e-Riyast to Governor.

The alienation of Kashmiris was taken advantage of by the US backed Pakistan, which encouraged and supported the militancy in the area. In 1980s with the entry of Al Qaeda elements in to Kashmir the militancy took a communal turn. The hanging of Maqbool Butt further accentuated the violent actions. This led to the fear amongst the Kashmiri Pandits, who were encouraged by the pro Hindutva Governor, Jag Mohan, to leave the valley. This complex fact has been constantly harped by the RSS combine and presented in the communal color. The Kashmiriyat as such is a synthesis of Vedanta, Buddhism and Sufi Islam. Sheikh Abdullah had implemented land reforms in right earnest, changing the complexion of Kashmir society towards democratic direction.

The prolonged militancy and intervention of Indian army, has added to the sour wounds of Kashmiri people. At one time RSS had proposed the prescriptions, which demanded that Jammu be made a separate state, Ladhak be made a Union territory and a separate union territory be carved out from the valley for the Kashmiri Pandits. These are the lines similar to what BJP had been demanding when not in power. This betrays their total communal ideology. Even in these elections the communal polarization, Hindu Jammu versus Muslim valley is what has been propagated for electoral benefit by BJP, and thus BJP has gained the ground on divisive basis. The issue of Amarnath yatra has also been used to polarize Kashmir along religious lines. Opportunistically, during election campaign Modi and company had been talking in a clever way about article 370, while their intentions on the subject are very clear.

This BJP gaining electoral ground in Kashmir is a major blow to the Kashmiriyat culture and is a sign of aggressive policies to abolish article 370 and to bring in the agenda of Hindu Nation. The trajectory of BJP in different states so far is that it allies in the beginning in the name of some common program and then gradually weakens its allies to come one up and grab the total power. What Kashmir needs is a representative Government, which respects the existing Constitutional provisions and upholds the Hindu Muslim unity, in the form of Kashmiriyat a valuable inheritance of Kashmir’s history.

Kashmir is standing on the cross roads. It has suffered a lot due to the militancy and the ways of army in the valley. In case the BJP is in the driver’s seat or in the driving car, the plight of Kashmir will worsen. Surely the next Government must focus on addressing the issues of Pundits, issues of Kashmir youth and evolve a development model for the state where the youth can get employment, pundits’ grievances are addressed and a surge for peace to promote tourism and development should be top most on the agenda.  The rising tide of communalism has to be checked, at the same time congenial situations are to be created where separatism, dies its natural death and the peace inside and peace from outside is enhanced by inclusive politics of the state government.

Read More

Resurgence of Godse Worship

Ram Puniyani

 

Times are a changing; and changing fast. During last many decades most Hindu nationalists have kept the appreciation of their hero, Nathuram Godse under wraps. The programs appreciating his politics did use to make small news here and there some time; but as such it was a muted act not much publicized and generally kept as a low key affair. During last few years Pradeep Dalvi’s play in Marathi, Mee Nathuram Boltoy (I, Nathuram speaking), attacking Gandhi and upholding Godse, drew packed houses in various places in Maharashtra. Many people had also protested against staging of this play off and on.

With the new dispensation coming to power (Modi Sarkar, May, 2014) many a communal assertions, acts and intimidations are up in the air. It seems these acts are being silently appreciated by those in power. This inference is logical as none in the positions of power have either reprimanded or opposed these Godse acolytes. The main reason is that due to the compulsions of power they do not openly support the Godse appreciation clubs. They also do not condemn these voices as they too belong to the Godse ideology of Hindu nationalism. This Hindu nationalism in popular parlance is projected as ‘Nationalism’, keeping the Hindu prefix in the silent mode.

Nathuram Godse

The latest in the series of acts-statements by this Godse appreciation clubs is the bhumi pujan (earth prayer-a ritual before beginning of new construction) by Hindu Mahasabha for Godse temple in Meerut (Dec 25 2014). The activists of Akhil Bharatiya Hindu Mahasabha are all set to build the country's first temple for murderer of Mahatma Gandhi in Meerut. There are several demands from the Hindu Mahasabha offices to install his statues. The Hindu Mahasabha has requested land from the Centre to erect a statue of Godse in the national capital. The paperback issue of Godse’s book is already running into second reprint.

The BJP MP Sakhshi Maharaj recently called Godse as Nationalist; of course he retracted it soon; apparently to ensure that the ruling party, BJP, is not embarrassed on the issue. At the same time, BJP’s parent organization RSS has come out with two books meant for internal circulation. These books claim to ensure that RSS viewpoint is reached to its Pracharaks, swayamsevaks. These books are RSS-Ek Parichay (RSS-an introduction) and RSS-Ek Saral Parichay (RSS-a simple introduction), the second of which is written by veteran RSS member MG Vaidya. Mr. Vaidya claims that "a narrative of accusation was built around RSS" so the book to dispel that. Essentially these books aim to dissociate RSS from Godse. While the Prime Minister Mr. Modi is maintaining maun (silence) on the subject the opposition leaders are  strongly criticizing Hindu Mahasabha's and others’ views on the murder of Mahatma Gandhi by Nathuram Godse.

What is the relationship between Godse and RSS? Was he part of RSS and later left it or was he part of it and also joined Hindu Mahasabha in mid 1930s? As for as official line is concerned RSS has tried to keep its slate clean by stating that it had nothing to do with Godse and he was not a member of RSS when he killed Mahatma Gandhi. Just to recall, in early 1998 Professor Rajendra Singh, the then RSS chief, had stated "Godse was motivated by akhand Bharat. His intention was good but he used the wrong method." (April 27 1998, Outlook)

How do we understand the whole issue? The major backdrop to understand the issue is to see the politics of Hindu nationalism as expressed through Hindu Mahasbah and RSS. These organizations remained aloof from freedom struggle. Hindu Mahasabha (HM), was more interested in the immediate participation in politics, as the flag bearers of Hindu communal politics, and the RSS wanted to concentrate on making a network of ‘cadres’ before forming organizations and infiltrating into different arena of education, culture, electoral politics and state apparatus. There was a lot of overlap in the agenda of these organizations as they were both working for the common goal of Hindu Nation. Nathuram Godse, ‘uniquely’ symbolized the fusion of both these two trends.

RSS could get away with dissociating with Godse or rather underplaying Godse’s association with RSS as there was no official record of members of RSS, and so they could disown Godse at legal level. In 1930 Godse joined RSS and very soon rose to be the bauddhik pracharak(intellectual propagator). Like both HM & RSS he was ardent Hindu Nationalist.

As a strong Hindutvawadi he was extremely critical of Gandhi’s ahimsa (non-violence) and the anti British movements led by him. Godse had very poor opinion of Gandhi’s role in freedom movement. RSS-Hindu Mahasbha kept criticizing Gandhi for his involving all religious communities in the freedom movement. Gandhi kept religion as personal matter and projected overarching Indian identity for all. This was what annoyed the HM-RSS combine, as they wanted only Hindus to be recognized as Indians. Godse’s assessment of nationalism of Gandhi is expressed in a way which identifies nationalism with Hindu kings. He used very peculiar parameters to assess Gandhi, “His (Gandhi’s, added) followers cannot see what is clear even to the blind viz. that Gandhi was a mere pigmy before Shivaji, Rana Pratap and Guru Govind  (ibid Pg. 40, Why I assassinated Gandhi?) and finally about the winning of swaraj and freedom I maintain the Mahatma’s contribution was negligible.” (Ibid. pg. 87)

He held Mahatma responsible for appeasing Muslims, and thereby the formation of Pakistan.  About his association with RSS and Hindu Mahasabha, he writes, “Having worked for the uplift of the Hindus I felt it necessary to take part in political activities of the country for the protection of just rights of Hindus. I therefore left the Sangh and joined Hindu Mahasabha  (Godse, ‘Why I Assassinated Mahatma Gandhi’ 1993, Pg.  102).

Hindu Mahasabha at that time the only political party of Hindutva, and he became general secretary of its Pune Branch.  In due course he started a newspaper, as founder editor, called Agrani or Hindu Rashtra.  As such Gandhi murder was not on the charges propagated by them (Partition and insistence on paying Pakistan’s dues (55 crore) from the treasury), but due to the basic deep differences with the politics of Gandhi and that of the followers of the Hindu Rashtra.  These two reasons are proffered merely as a pretext for the same.

What does Godse mean when he says that he left RSS? Is it true? This truth behind Nathuram’s leaving RSS, is clarified by his brother Gopal Godse. In an interview given to ‘The Times of India’ (25 Jan 98); Gopal Godse, who was also an accomplice in the murder when tells us the reality behind Nathuram’s statement that ‘he left RSS’. Gopal Godse says “The appeasement policy followed by him (Gandhi, added) and imposed on all Congress governments’ encouraged the Muslim separatist tendencies that eventually created Pakistan…Technically and theoretically he (Nathuram) was a member (of RSS), but he stopped workings for it later. His statement in the court that he had left the RSS was to protect the RSS workers who would be imprisoned following the murder. On the understanding that they (RSS workers) would benefit from his dissociating himself from the RSS, he gladly did it."

So this is the logic of Godse saying that he ‘left’ RSS. The dual membership (RSS+Hindu Mahasabha) was not a problem. Thus the murder of Gandhi was steeped in both the streams of Hindutva politics, RSS and HM.  His editing the paper called, ‘Hindu Rashtra was quite symbolic.  This murder had a broad sanction of the followers of HM and RSS, as they celebrated Mahatma’s murder by distributing sweets, “All their (RSS) leaders’ speeches were full of communal poison.  As a final result, the poisonous atmosphere was created in which such a ghastly tragedy (Gandhi’s murder) became possible.  RSS men expressed their joy and distributed sweets after Gandhi’s death."  (excerpt from Sardar Patel’s letters to M S Golwalkar and S P Mookerjee.). Godse was no freak.  The way Hindu communalists were spewing poison against Gandhi, it was the logical outcome of their politics.  And Godse had the ‘benefit’ of the teachings of both RSS as well as HM. They used the word wadh for this murder. This word wadh stands for killing a demon who is harming the society. In a way Gandhi murder was the first major offensive of the Hindutva politics on Indian Nationalism; in a way it was to herald the onset of bigger strides which Hindutva politics has assumed during last few decades, and this is what we are witnessing today.

So though officially RSS family kept dissociating from Gandhi’s murder by Godse, in private many a members not only uphold the dastardly act, but also have even succeeded in undermining the importance of Mahatma and they do ‘sympathize’ with Godse. This complex trick kept going on so far. Now with Modi Sarkar there is no need to hide the true ideology and thinking of this combine and so the open efforts to glorify Godse!

Read More

How is Ghar Vapasi Different from Forcible Conversions?

Ram Puniyani

Propaganda around conversions has been one of the major political tools during last few decades. It was Niyogi Commission report which investigated the conversions in Adivasi areas in 1950s, then the Meenaxipuram conversions of Dalits into Islam, the and then the gruesome murder of Pastor Graham Stewart Stains on the charges that he was doing the conversion; are few amongst the big spectrum related to the phenomenon of conversions. As such the regular propaganda by communal forces that Muslim Kings converted people into Islam by sword has been made the part of ‘social common sense’ by now. On regular basis around Christmas time one saw the anti Christian violence in Adivasi areas a decade ago, and in that context rather than focusing on the violence against religious minorities, the then Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee called for a National debate on Conversions.

In the recent conversions to Hinduism in Agra (10 December 2014) nearly 350 pavement dwellers-rag pickers and other destitute sections were promised that if they participate in the religious function they will be given the ration card and BPL cards. This was done by the Bajrang Dal activist and the Hindu Janjagriti Samiti both outfits affiliated to RSS. The only difference is that this process has been called as Ghar Vapasi and not conversion. On one hand this is being projected as a great valorous achievement by the RSS leaders like Yogi Adiytnath, on the other it is being labeled as a master stroke by RSS by other RSS ideologues. According to one ideologue of RSS, they had been calling for a ban on conversions, which was being opposed by the secular elements and religious minorities. This conversion nay Ghar Vapasi will bring to fore the debate to bring in the strict law against any conversion. If, as reported, the conversion of 350 odd Muslims in Ved Nagar in Agra to Hinduism is the work of RSS, it is clear that the RSS has grown strategic, according to RSS ideologue. 

As per this ideologue this move of RSS is a smart one too. It seems to have triggered a debate on conversions which it has been asking for decades but was evaded by its critics. While communal elements are crying hoarse that Meenaxipuram has been the act of conversions through petro dollars and the Christian missionaries are doing conversion though foreign money, the truth of the matter is somewhat different. Meenaxipuram conversion was triggered by humiliation of the dalit youth by the upper caste. While the propaganda that Christian missionaries are doing forcible conversions is on the peak the fact is that no evidence of the application of force has been generally reported. It is also true that while some sects of Christian do claim that they are converting; the majority sects affirm that when the conversion is sought by someone in the society and only under that voluntary request the conversion if at all takes place. Interestingly as many people have started believing that the missionaries are converting the population of Christians has been shown a marginal decline during last few decades as per census figures (1971-2.60, 1982-2.44. 1991-2.34, 2001 -2.30 and probably 2.20 in 2011) The Wadhwa Commission, which was appointed by the then home minister L.K.Advani in the after math of the burning of Pastor Stains points out that Pastor was not involved in the work of conversions and that in Keonjhar in Manoharpur of Orissa, the percentage of Christians has shown fair stability, or an statistical insignificant rise in the percentage of Christian population during the time Pastor Stains was working there.

How have conversion taken place in India? We can examine this in two stages. In medieval period as far as conversion to Islam is concerned it took place mainly due to the caste oppression, as pointed out by Swami Vivekananda "Why amongst the poor of India so many are Mohammadens?  It is nonsense to say that they were converted by the sword.  It was to gain liberty from Zamindars and Priests....." (Collected Works- Vol. 8- Page 330). Surely a small section did convert to Islam due to anticipation for reward by Muslim kings, a smaller section due to fear and a substantial chunk due to the social interaction as seen in the Muslims of Malabar coast and the Muslims of Mewat. Major conversion to Islam during medieval time was due to the influence of Sufi saints, at whose Dargaha the untouchables could also visit. Since even today one fourth of the population holds to the norms of untouchablity, it is not surprising that some dominated castes do keep deciding to leave the fold of Hinduism, as was proclaimed by Dr. Ambedkar, who left Hinduism with proclamation that ‘I was born a Hindu; that was not in my hands, but I will not die a Hindu.”

The conversions to Christianity did not begin with the coming of British as propagated by some. Christianity is centuries old, entering India with the coming of St Thomas in the first century. Some doubt this version and hold that Christianity came here in fifth century. The Christian missionaries have been working here in the neglected Adivasi areas providing the health and educational services, the appeal of which prompted many an Adivasis-Dalits to embrace this religion. It is only from last six decades that communal forces have been showing their discomfort of Missionaries working in the Adivasi-village areas violence has been more in those areas. Not to forget here is the point that many a Christian institutions are located in cities, where all sections of society vie to send their children. One can also concede that a few of these missions may be aiming for conversions through their prayer and healing services. The question of allurement and fraud, if at all, may be a small component of the phenomenon of conversion to Christianity. Most of the attacks and accusations which took place against Christian missionaries were when they were holding prayer meetings. The money they receive comes through proper FCRA channel, and many a NGOs including the organizations like RSS also receive foreign funds to be sure.

Now the assertion is that what RSS affiliates do is a Ghar vapasi! They claim so many things which are a pure political concoction. The voluntary conversions have very much been a part of caste ridden Indian society. It is another matter that even the Christian and Muslim communities could not remain free from this caste virus, but the hope of the dominated castes to get social justice has played a major role in changing one’s faith. The RSS claim that the ancestors of all these converts are Hindus has no relevance in the debate. How is ancestry important in one’s faith and the citizenship today? Do we have to trace our ancestry to decide today’s faith? Where will this lead us? The theory of evolution apart the latest DNA studies show that human’s beginning is from South Africa. The coming of Aryans to India from Arctic zone (Lokmanya Tilak ) to that Aryans were original inhabitants of India is a perpetual debate, with more heat than light in it.

What was the religion of Nomads-Pagans? Some social scientists call it Indigenous culture, rather than religion for the phenomenon which was and is practiced by indigenous (Adivasi) people all over the World. Society is always changing. As caste system has been the central part of religion in India many of the dominated castes regularly kept leaving Hinduism to opt for other religions, Jainism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and Sikhism. People felt that they are not getting equality and so kept leaving the Hindu fold and embracing other religions. After Lord Buddha’s teachings a large chunk of people became Buddhists in the sub continent. It is another matter that later in the Brahminical reaction, Buddhism was wiped out from here. Many felt that the missions are doing service to their community so they changed their faith.

The problem, which RSS projects is due to its being hung up to the values and system of past; pastoral, agricultural-feudal societies. The changes in social system accompany the changes in systems of production and education in particular; are totally missing in its world view. India came into being through the freedom struggle led by Mahatma Gandhi, who could unite the people of all religions as he treated all religions on equal ground. For him, there is no distinction between foreign and Native religions. Three types of Nationalisms competed with each their during freedom movement. On one hand was the concept of Indian Nationalism and the accompanying concept of ‘India as a nation in the making’, this is what was followed by most of the people. The other was Muslim Nationalism, which located its beginning from the time of Muhammad bin Kasim’s victory in Sindh in eight century. And the third one was Hindu nationalism, ‘we are a Hindu nation from times immemorial’, held by the Hindu Mahasabha and RSS. Both these latter nationalisms derived their legitimacy from identity of religion had miniscule social support.

Unfortunately Gandhi is quoted extensively by Right wing forces to oppose conversions; but his quotes which are taken support are fragments of what he said. His major quote on conversion is from collected works, Volume XLVI p. 27-28. In an interview dated 22^nd March 1931, given to The Hindu, Gandhi apparently stated that “if in self governing India, missionaries kept ‘proselytizing’ by means of medical aid, education etc., I would certainly ask them to withdraw. Every nation’s religion is as good as any other. Certainly India’s religions are adequate for her people. We need no converting spirituality.” This is the first part of the quote and the lines that follow give the totally opposite idea, the ideas, which Gandhi held. Gandhi goes on to write, “This is what the reporter has put in my mouth… All that I can say is that it is a travesty of what I have always said and held.” He goes on to explain, “I am, then, not against conversion. But I am against the modern methods of it. Conversions nowadays have become a matter of business, like any other… Every nation considers its own faith to be as good as that of any other. Certainly the great faiths held by the people of India are adequate for her people. India stands in no need of conversions from one faith to another.” And then he goes on to list the faiths of India, “Apart from Christianity and Judaism, Hinduism and its offshoots, Islam and Zoroastrianism are living faiths.”

As Gandhi opposed the divisive agenda of communal forces, which were using identity of religions for political purpose, Gandhi in contrast was harping on ‘morality’ of religions to unite the people. So while he was leading the anti colonial struggle the communalists were spitting fire against the ‘other community’ and ‘Shuddhi’ (Arya Samaj) and Tanjim (Tablighi Jammat) was part of their political agenda in the early part of twentieth century. The Hindu religion is not a prophet based religion, so the concept of conversion is not there. In most prophet based religions the call for spreading the divine word is there. So earlier Arya Samaj coined the word Shuddhi, which was for forcible conversion into Hinduism. RSS improvised on that and has coined the word Ghar Vapasi as a clever move to hide its ‘forcible conversion drive’. Its claim that it is undertaking Ghar vapasi to bring the religious minorities in the mainstream is again a hoax as minorities had been equal participants in the movement for India’s freedom, a struggle from which RSS remained aloof, barring one exception. To claim that adivasis are Hindus, is again does not hold water as Adivasis are animists, believing in nature worship, and in the spirit of their ancestors and spirit of Nature. All over the World indigenous people hold similar belief and have similar practice. This is unlike Hinduism where Gita, Ram and Acharya are the core part of it belief today.

The central point is that RSS does not recognize Indian nationalism and holds to Hindu nationalism so the whole maneuver for this ‘forcible conversion’ is being passed off as ‘Ghar Vapasi’ while dubbing other conversions as forcible. Rather than recognizing the qualitative change in the formation of India as the nation state, it is stuck to the pastoral-feudal-preindustrial society with the values of caste and gender hierarchy. The ‘Ghar vapsi’ is being planned at larger scales. And an intimidating and fraudulent atmosphere is being created to execute the forcible conversions. This is a frightening message to religious minorities. This is a clever manipulation of political power to violate the norms of Indian constitution.

Then how do we distinguish between a forcible conversion and adoption of a new religion. In the present scheme of things if one leaves Hindu fold to embrace Buddhism-Jainism-Sikhism, it is OK, as they are ‘Indian religions. For communalists problem seems to be only with Islam and Christianity! The basic shrewdness is to call religions as national or foreign. As such religions are basically universal not bound by national boundaries.

Constituent Assembly had discussed this thread bare and so the right to practice and propagate one’s religion is very much there. In the debate the word used is ‘converting’ others. Where is the place for people volunteering and adopting another religion, like Ambedkar and so many others? In a way it is a way to undermine the conscience of people that somebody is converting them. Where is the place for choice of one’s religion in a democratic society believing in ‘freedom of religion and conscience’?

With RSS plans for a bigger conversion nay Ghar vapasi in Aligarh this Christmas (2014) the attempt to polarize the society are being taken to a higher pitch. The heroes of RSS parivar like Yogi Adityanath are saying that those being subjected to ghar vapasi will be given the Gotra and caste from which they converted! So come what may the caste structure and rigidities remain and thrive. That’s what the agenda of nationalism in the name of Hinduism is!

Do we need laws to ban conversions? We have laws to punish those who indulge in force, fraud and allurement. What we need is to distinguish between voluntary conversion and forced one’s. Ghar Vapasi is a shrewd name for forcible conversions. So what we need is the political and moral will to promote freedom of religion and punish the guilty, using illegal means to achieve the change of faith. The so called ‘Freedom of Religion’ bills are there not to provide freedom of conscience but to curb the same by legal means.

Read More