Prof Elst's muddled defence of 'caste'

An old essay by Prof Koenraad Elst (Hinduism Today, Sep 1994) re-surfaced recently in some e-mail groups. The essay (click here) had been presented as the “verdict from Belgium” on the Hindu caste system: that “for the most part” Hinduism has been “helped rather than hurt”.

More than justifying the above “verdict”, the essay actually shows up the Professor as confused and confusing. It was following the above essay that the Professor is known to have completed a doctoral thesis with the Catholic University of Leuven in 1998, based on which a book titled Decolonizing the Hindu Mind: Ideological Development of Hindu Revivalism was published in 2001 (Note 1).

Prof Elst’s defence of the Hindu caste system reminds one of Dr Annie Besant who served as its apologist during the formative years of India’s Congress Party, which Periyar and others (including Subhash Chandra Bose) would quit, in later years (when Gandhiji had assumed leadership), in disappointment that the Party was being hijacked by the upper castes or ‘vested interests’. Annie Besant’s alignment with the Brahminists led to such perverse arguments as: “here [in India] as well as in Britain they [the lower classes] are a menace to civilisation and were undermining the fine fabric of society….. the danger to the country was not as many imagined from educated India but from these poor miserable classes” (New India, 13 Sep 1915). Besant also believed that an untouchable had to work out his karma in this life in the hope of breaking free from the shackles of untouchability in some future life (Note 2).

Let’s now examine the logic of Prof Elst’s arguments in his abovesaid essay.

1. For instance, Elst asserts:

“…… Everyone is a shudra by birth. Boys become dwija, twice-born, or member of one of the three upper varnas upon receiving the sacred thread in the upanayana ceremony."

a) This Professor is NOT saying how are these boys – who are ALL supposedly born shudra - selected to become ‘dwija’ or twice-born, i.e. to become a member of one of three upper varnas. He seems to be hoping that his reader will be ignorant of the fact that it is only those who are born into one of these three upper ‘dwija’ varnas who will get to receive “the sacred thread in the upanayan ceremony”, thereby being pronounced dwija or twice-born. This learned Professor is simply obscuring the fact that the distinction of being born again (or born twice) is not earned by individual merit but is derived by birth. In making such a presentation, he is either NOT being truthful OR plainly muddled.

b) The Professor also paraphrases the Purushasukta, the creation myth of Brahmanism that might have been interpolated into the RigVeda, as follows:

"….. The youngest part of the Rg-Veda describes four classes: learned brahmins born from Brahma's mouth, martial kshatriya-born from his arms; vaishya entrepreneurs born from His hips and shudra workers born from His feet."

This blinkered Professor seems NOT to care that the above creation story leaves out the origin of those (sub-)humans – the millions of outcastes - who do not belong to any of the four castes of caturvarna (or classes, as he calls, consistent with Hindutva’s revisionist terminology). If these out-of-castes (or outcastes) could not have emanated from Brahma (or, some celestial / primordial being), where else could they have emerged from?

c) Though one may not be impressed by the Professor’s display of knowledge and logic, one cannot fail to recognize that he had mastered the circularity (endless looping) of the home-bred Brahmanists.

2. This Professor, who would himself count as a “mlechha” in the Manusmriti conception of society, offers another muddled opinion about history:

"….The varna system expanded from the Saraswati-Yamuna area and got firmly established in the whole of Aryavarta (Kashmir to Vidarbha, Sindh to Bihar). It counted as a sign of superior culture setting the arya, civilized, heartland apart from the surrounding mleccha, barbaric, lands. In Bengal and the South, the system was reduced to a distinction between brahmins and shudras."

He seems to be lamentably ignorant of the fact that civilization (e.g. the Indus Valley Civilization) existed across the Indian landmass well before the marauding nomads arrived to set up aryavarta.

It seems that Professors like him practically stop learning (about some matters) after they complete school. That shows up in his view of Indian history through the ‘narrow-angle lens’ with which (mentally) he must have graduated some decades earlier. So much water would have flowed through the Thames (rather, the Meuse and the Schelde of Belgium) since then, but he seems to have absorbed little by way of new knowledge.

3. This Professor completes his exposition on Hindu caste(ism) without any mention of the Manusmriti, the source document of Varnashrama Dharma that sets out the four-fold caste order of Brahmanism but based on a fraudulent claim of Vedic authority. Why?

a) It is like finishing a talk on evolution theory without at all mentioning Charles Darwin and his ‘Origin of Species’.

b) At least the VHP was mindful of the Manusmriti in its recent rejection of the Varnashrama Dharma, though it still fought shy of full admission and contrition by prevaricating clumsily: "supposedly written in Manusmrithi" (see VHP rejects `varnashrama', seeks end to untouchability, The Hindu 20 March 2006).

4. Elst refers to the existence of classes in other societies: "In Europe and elsewhere, there was (or still is) a hierarchical distinction between noblemen and commoners, with nobility only marrying nobility." Apparently, he does not understand the difference between the Hindu castes or caste system (as codified by the Manusmriti) and the Western classes or class system. He may benefit from some explanation in:
Social inequalities: the Varnashramic difference


5. Elst’s credits (at the end of his abovesaid essay) include the following disclosure:

"…. Between 1988 and 1993 he spent much of his time in India doing research at the prestigious Banaras Hindu University."

It appears that his research in India did not lift him from ignorance, instead only deepened his prejudice.

Prof Elst also appears to be one of those so-called scholars of Hinduism who know next to nothing about the extant literature in Tamil pertaining to the oldest (Dravidian) tradition of Hinduism. It is literature that will easily match, if not exceed, in volume and quality what exists in Sanskrit. Yet such scholars boldly hold forth on a subject they are ignorant by half, only to turn out as muddled and worse.


Note 1: see Note 7 of Hinduism: its caste system & priesthood

Note 2: Geetha, V. and Rajadurai, S.V., Towards a Non-Brahmin Millenium (1998), p.20-21.


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com

‘Dharma’ versus ‘தருமம்’

I have always had a big mental tussle over what goes by the label 'Dharma' ever since I first came to understand the real scriptural (Vedic) meaning of the word (in Sanskrit). Till then, I had mistakenly believed that it was merely the Sanskrit equivalent of the Tamil word 'tharmam' (or, more correctly, 'tharumam' - 'தருமம்') and bearing the same meaning.

Most of my generation would have first drawn the meaning of the Tamil 'tharumam' not from any dictionary (how troublesome!) but from the popular Tamil cinema lyric 'tharumam thalai kaakum..... ' (தருமம் தலை காக்கும்), made famous by our great MGR! It meant being charitable, compassionate and doing good. In that sense, it falls within the scope of aRam (அறம்) expounded by Aiyyan Thiruvalluvar.

But it would dawn upon me only much later that the Vedic 'Dharma' is NOT the same as Tamil 'tharumam'. In fact, Dharma - as Varnashrama Dharma – turns out to be shockingly discriminatory and socially divisive in the way it conceives, structures and administers duty and justice in society.

Even a great treatise like the Bhagavad Gita is convoluted by the need to weave into it the centrality of Dharma (Note 3). Apparently, the same has been the compulsion of all Sanskritic epics and puranas; perhaps, the Upanishads are the only exceptions.

Mahatma Gandhi was straining himself to explain why he was drawing a message of NON-VIOLENCE from the Gita: I didn't understand Gandhiji when I first read him, and I still don't (obviously, I must not have been evolving during all these intervening years!). Perhaps, it is President Bush who is the most evolved soul around today, seeming to have taken to heart Gita's message of non-violence: he bombed Baghdad without anger in his heart AND with detachment (he only wanted to spread democracy & save the world - and, of course, the oilfields - from the terrorists) AND it is next the turn of Iran for some lesson in Bushite non-violence!

IF Dharma falls, as it will AND must for the sake of India and the people of India, it will be Brahmanism / Vedism that will collapse with it. If the Brahmanists/Sanskritists have any sense left in them, they must quickly do some serious soul-searching. It would be laughable to blame India’s encounters with Islam and the British colonialists for the obnoxious caste system, as some Hindutva writers have been doing of late (click here), either out of sheer desperation or massive confusion. For their part, the adherents / inheritors of the Tamil/Dravidian tradition of Hinduism (Note 1) would have to extricate from the Sanskrit texts those parts that are consistent with their (non-varnashramic) tradition (Note 2).


Note 1:

The oldest tradition of Hinduism is characteristically Tamilian / Dravidian, comprising Saivism and Maliyam / Vaishnavism, and precedes Vedism. There are two major disconnects between the Dravidian and Vedic traditions of Hinduism: in terms of doctrine (Varnashramam) and ritual (yagam / yajna). The doctrinal split is the worse of the two, fundamental and unbridgeable.


Note 2:

Mr Pathmarajah Nagalingam ( owner of website www.siddha.com.my ) writes in akandabaratam@yahoogroups.com (13 March 2006) as follows:

"......Most of varnashrama is in the smirthis, which I call the 'varnashrama texts'. The idea is to delink, to separate the shruti from the smirthis. Without the smirthis; that is, the manu shastras and itihasas as well as all late puranas, then Hinduism is varna free!

There are a few sutras, probably about 7 or 8, in the vedas and upanishads that seems to support varna. These 'must have been' later additions, interpolations or misinterpretations - because for every varna sutra in the vedas, we can show ten others that defy such thinking.

To me the vedas and upanishads are clearly saivite texts and not anything else, no matter what other sectarians may wish to see or trace their origins to. Seen in a non sectarian light, it is a very 'saivite' document as it is all encompassing. Besides it quite clearly says the vedas were given by Lord Rudra to Brahma. So its our heritage.

The smirthis are not our heritage."


Note 3: (inserted 14 March 2006)

1. There is no question about the depth and profundity of the Gita. But my anguish and quarrel is over the fact that all of the spell-binding exposition by Lord Krishna turns out - in the final analysis - to be directed towards buttressing the cruel ideology of Varnashramam. It is as if the All-Knowing Lord has willingly (as he is All-Knowing, it canNOT be UNwittingly) become the mouthpiece of a socially divisive and oppressive ideology. It is not unlike talented journalists (even researchers) today who get ‘hired’, ‘commissioned’ or ‘embedded’ by governments or corporate interests to promote a certain cause or line of thinking in their writings.

2. The fundamental difference between the Hindu castes and the classes of other societies (e.g. Western) is set out in an earlier post Social inequalities: the Varnashramic difference. And in the face of the volumes that the Manusmrti talks about varna (caste), how could we hope to escape the odium of castes by merely re-naming them as classes?

3. Gita’s Krishna Himself says that it would be better to perform one’s (inherited) duty badly than perform some other duty excellently. How could one go along with that line of reasoning. Or is this an interpolation? If so, let us take out such interpolations (or, mark them out as worthy of repudiation) so that the Gita will not serve to buttress Varnashramam.


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com

European scholars of Tamil versus Sankritists

One cannot resist comparing what many European scholars and Christian missionaries (Note 1) have done for the Tamil language with the damage the home-based Sanskritists have inflicted upon the Tamil language over many centuries before the Europeans arrived, and even thereafter.

In order to salvage Tamil from its Sanskritic corruption (manipravaalam) (Note 2), Maraimalai Adigal launched the Thani Thamizh Iyakkam in the face of great opposition from the Sanskritists. The Tamil we have today and that has been recognized as a classical language (also click here) - with the distinction of being also a living language – indeed owes much to the collective effort of these European / Christian scholars and a series of indigenous Tamil scholars, including Maraimalai Adigal.

The European scholars who were also mostly Christian missionaries took the pain to learn Tamil and its literature so as to, first, understand the cultural makeup and impulses of the people, and then preach the Christian faith in the language of the people (or, what the colonialists referred to condescendingly as the ‘vernacular’). In the process, by sharing and contributing, they helped to re-vitalize the language of the people. Their works marked the beginning of what has come to be recognized as the era of Tamil Renaissance (Note 1).

The mentality of the Sanskritists had been the polar opposite. It was always about appropriation, marginalisation and obliteration. Sanskrit was itself artificially constructed to make it unintelligible to the ordinary people. Pre-existing knowledge / texts in the language(s) of the people were all imported / translated into Sanskrit. The ablest amongst the natives/indigenes were inducted into the folds of the caste system, specifically into its priesthood, as were the kings but who were subordinated to the priesthood as Rajanyas / Kshatriyas. Existing records of knowledge in the people’s language(s) were allowed to decay or disappear, through neglect or design. Education was increasingly de-emphasised for the ordinary people: to be codified as a prohibition under the karma-Dharma of Manusmrti. Wherever the priesthood intruded, the temple deities themselves were distanced from the language of the people.

By gradually establishing Sanskrit as the language for intellectual and religious discourse, Sanskrit became the link language of the educated or the elite / upper class – not unlike Latin in the past (in old Europe) and English today. This could only lead to the impoverishment of the language of the people.

A further detriment suffered by the language of the people was through excessive infusion of Sanskrit words. If it had been limited to the addition of essential new words or new roots, that would have been legitimate and enriching: all languages grow by selective borrowings, including Sanskrit (which has thousands of Tamil / Dravidian language roots). What actually happened was a massive onslaught that led to the unnecessary displacement of even existing and effective words in the Tamil language on a large scale. It is this Sanskritization of the Tamil language that led to its fragmentation into languages like Malayalam, etc. centuries ago. Of more recent times, as late as the early 20th century, we encounter an exceedingly corrupt form of Tamil called ‘manipravaalam’ (Note 2).

Thanks to Maramalai Adigal and the Thani Thamizh Iyakkam, we have a Tamil language today that would be unrecognizable to the manipravaalites. It is these exponents of Thani Thamizh that writer Jayakanthan had recently dared to deride, only to be met by swift and decisive condemnation. It is this Tamil language – salvaged through so much arduous and untiring effort - that has now gone on to earn formal recognition as a classical language. If Tamil had remained stuck in its past corrupt 'manipravaalam' form, this distinction would have eluded her forever. The Tamil world owes eternal gratitude to Maramalai Adigal and such others.

Having come this far, the Tamil language faces a new danger today through the mindless, indiscriminate and unnecessary importation of English words, AND the neglect she suffers in education and governance in the state of Tamil Nadu.

(adaptation & elaboration of my earlier two posts on GT@yahoogroups.com on 17 Sep 2005)

Note 1:

The Contribution of European Scholars to Tamil, by Dr K Meenakshisundram (International Institute of Tamil Studies), University of Madras (1974):


“In the history of Tamil literature the advent of European interest is indisputably a landmark. This era can be considered as the initial beginning for the Tamil Renaissance. It was a reawakening of flagging interest and drowsy talent to the inexhaustible mine of literature and literary capacities.

Before the advent of European scholars into the domain of Tamil literature, prose in the language had been a mere rivulet compared to the vast ocean of Tamil poetry……

Tamil was exposed to the all-permeating influence of Sanskrit. Almost all was either attributed to her or to her dominating influence. She (Tamil) was entangled with Sanskrit and it was left to European scholars to detach her from that gnawing hold when creative Tamil literary activity had nearly reached an impasse and channel her in her own individual courses.

The ways that were paved for subsequent native following, the torches they lit to enlighten those ways, the western methods they profitably introduced and the long vistas opened up for future speculation and research by European scholars form a golden chapter in the history of Tamil literature….. Any study of Tamil literature is irremovably entwined with the perpetual stamps they have left behind. No study of it can be complete, devoid of an honest and candid appreciation of them. They retrieved for us the glories of our past literature, they reawakened in us the sparks of lively interest and they introduced us to the great scientific strides of the west….. Some Catholic Missionaries on arriving in India adopted either Tamil or Indianised names and became known by them. Protestant Missionaries on the contrary gave foreign names to native converts……. These scholars came from many nations – Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Scotland etc., and the influence each different environment had on its respective scholar is interesting and important.

…….. History has never been a fertile soil for Indian minds. History was shrouded by legends and myths, and facts were distorted beyond recognition. It was only after European scholars commenced their labours that a taste for history developed. Their innumerable but regular letters have become the skeletons around which the history of Tamilnad was constructed. These letters depicted conditions prevailing in Tamilnad during those days. It was around these letters that many history books of Tamilnad were written like “The Nayaks of Madura”……” (p.1 -3)


“….. Torn by domestic quarrels and internal strife, perpetually threatened by the Moghuls and other northern forces, frequently ravaged by famine and diseases and devastated by daring robbers, the history of South India was one of turmoil and chaos from the 16th century onwards. In that era of vicissitudes and oscillating alliances, the foreign missionaries had to toil amidst great obstacles (to) advance their cause and to spread the Gospel……. Each force vying with the other to rule supreme and respectively trying to force their culture and language on the conquered was the order of the day. Tamil was over-ridden in turn by Telugu, Urudu, Marathi and last but not least by Sanskrit. There was a day when the bards of Tamilnad shied to write in their mother tongue. One is almost reminded of Bacon who preferred to write his books in Latin so as to preserve them for all posterity. Most of the earlier workds were in Olai (Palm leaves) and were inaccessible. The learned few, jealously guarded what they had. During this dark era, the work of several missions and the missionaries is the redeeming feature and their work ushered in a period of reawakening and enlightenment. Their work is epoch-making history…….

Though through Missionary efforts the printing press had been imported as early as 1577, printing presses were installed both in Bombay and Madras to publish newspapers towards the close of the 18th century (1785-94). “In the 18th century the attitude of Englishmen towards Indians changed from indifference in the beginning to close contact. The days of corrupt Company officials, of ill-gotten fortunes, of oppression of ryots, of Zenanas and of illicit sexual connections, were also the days when Englishmen were interested in Indian culture.”……” (p.22-24)


“A dark cloud descended on the Tamil country and shrouded Tamil. During this age Tamil literature was veritably stagnant. Tamilnad stopped growing politically, economically and socially. With the arrival of European scholars, a new awakening was heralded. Their interest began slowly to seep through the thick cloud of apathy and a revival of literary interest commenced.

The reigning notion prevalent in the south at that time was to trace the origin of Tamil to Sanskrit. It was steadfastly believed that apart from Sanskrit, she could never have an independent existence. Europeans, however, got acquainted with Tamil sooner than with Sanskrit and the reason is obvious, since Tamil was a living language unlike Sanskrit. Their early studies based on Latin and Greek models revealed the baseless assumptions of the origin of Tamil. Many South Indian languages were taken up for individual study and research. Later, a comparison of such studies followed which culminated in the stupendous but admirable work by Dr Caldwell. It was Caldwell who diligently proved beyond doubt, the independent origin and existence of Tamil. She was declared to possess a vast and rich ancient literature. A Dravidian family of languages was asserted by these studies which consisted of cultivated and uncultivated languages of which Tamil was the eldest sister. A comparative and historical study of the affiliated languages also commenced. Dr. Caldwell’s works inspired many successive studies and to this day, they are venerated……

The unique ideas embedded in Tamil were for the first time startlingly released to the western world by translations. The various translations of the great Tamil works into the different tongues of the occident exhibited the peerlessness of the Kural, the exquisitiveness of the Tiruvacakam and other major works which had hitherto remained occult. Natives recognized the value of such translations and began to emulate their methods.

The elusive nature of “floating literature” refused to baffle them. Proverbs and folksongs were collected, edited and translated, saving them for subsequent research and posterity.

A catalogue of the printed Tamil books showed the development and retardation of the language in each branch of literature. It was an eye-opener to the natives.

Manuscripts which would have perished but for the ceaseless efforts of European scholars like Tavarnier, Mackenzie and Brown were unearthed and edited adopting western methods of punctuation. They were later printed and many a work emerged into the limelight.

Inscriptions were read by the scholars like Keilhorn, Fleet and Burnell with a historical sense for the first time. Then the scholars began to decipher and detect from them many an obscure historical facts.

Prose literature was given a new impetus. Geography, science, history and short stories found expression in Tamil. The mighty engine of literature, the press hastened the spread of literature and brought works until then inaccessible within easy reach. Newspapers, dailies, magazines, periodicals etc., began to exert a remarkable influence. Methods of education changed and modern but advantageous changes followed…….

Religious ideas belonging to their own Christian faith were remarkably introduced, garbed in Tamil. Here again, Beschi’s Tempavani has and will stand the test of time.

The non-chalant native attitude towards Tamil and their indiscriminate attraction towards English was mercilessly denounced by these foreign scholars. They decisively showed that for cultural survival, native literature cannot be abandoned. Translating from English to Tamil and vice versa was profitably encouraged…….

To sum up, we have to emphasize the facts that European scholars declared to the world the great culture inherent in Tamil and introduced a new scientific way of studying her. Through Tamil, the great scientific discoveries were introduced to her people and they were awakened from a long slumber to an era of activity and advancement. கன்னித் தமிழ் பாடி காலமெல்லாம் தமிழ் வளர்ப்போம் !” (p.336-338)


Note 2:

Jayankanthan and Tamil language sentiments (9 June 2005), Note 1

Malayalam: Motivated genesis of a language (12 Nov 2005)


Related blogs:

Macaulay continues to rankle the Sanskritists (3 March 2006)

'Sanskritisation': Definition or Deflection? (28 Feb 2006)

Dumbing down of Hindu society (1): 'Mother of All (Open) Secrets' (14 Aug 2005)

Hinduism: its caste system & priesthood (18 June 2005)

Jayankanthan and Tamil language sentiments (09 June 2005)


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com

Hindutva invents an external cause for social evils

Sandhya Jain in her latest column titled "Sunset in Sacramento" in The Pioneer (7 March 2006) is taking Hindutva’s penchant for history revisionism to new heights.

What can beat the following sentence that is embedded towards the end of her report:

“Most dishonest is the politically motivated attempt to project social evils like untouchability and rigid caste divisions upon India's ancient civilization, when both are products of the medieval encounter with Islam.”

Sandhya acknowledges that untouchability and rigid caste divisions are “social evils”. But she goes on to suggest that these “social evils” were introduced into India by Islam OR came about as result of India’s “encounter with Islam”.

Would this not be denying Manusmrti – undoubtedly a pre-Islamic text – its due (dis-)credit?


Related blogs:

Social inequalities: the Varnashramic difference (18 Feb 2006)

Teaching Hinduism without the facts (14 Feb 2006)

Ancient Tamil society (14 July 2005)

Hinduism: its caste system & priesthood (18 June 2005)


Related reports:

San Francisco Chronicle
How Does California Teach about Hinduism? A different agenda
Romila Thapar, Michael Witzel
Monday, March 6, 2006
….. The textbook revisions whitewash the plight of women and the so-called lower castes. Women's history was reduced to "different" rights while the caste system, which subjugated millions of Indians as virtual slaves in the untouchable caste, was simply a division of labor…….

Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com

Macaulay continues to rankle the Sanskritists

It appears that Mr JG Arora in his essay "Revive Sanskrit" (in the Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, 3 March 2006) is assigning an overly exaggerated role to Sanskrit in the practice and survival of Hinduism by claiming as follows:

“..... But death of Sanskrit means death of Hindu religion, Hindu Sanskriti (culture), Hindu heritage and Hindu identity……..Sanskrit must be revived and taught in schools and colleges since its survival is a must for survival of Hinduism and for rediscovery of hidden treasures of Bharat Varsha.....”

Sanskrit can keep the scholars and priests occupied. But it is in AND by the “languages of the people” that (popular) Hinduism lives AND will live.

It is these “languages of the people”, e.g. Tamil, that have to now play a much greater role in education, in the governance of the Indian States, and in the lives of the people, IF India were to be able to maintain its cultural distinctiveness and vibrancy on the world stage.


The Macaulayan plan for Indian education (1835) was appropriate under the circumstances then:

a) Macaulay was thinking in terms of mass education, though it had to be taken forward in stages in view of the sheer immensity of the task and the needs of Empire-building. This was understandably contrary to the thinking of the exclusivist Sankritists (or Brahmanists) who had always sought to restrict education to the upper castes.

b) Macaulay judged correctly that Sanskrit (or Arabic) would NOT help the people of India to develop intellectually AND operate effectively in a world that would be shaped and driven by modern science and technology. This corresponded closely to the thinking of leading social reformers of India like Raja Rammohun Roy who was already (in 1823) calling for the end of the domination of Sanskrit in Indian education.

c) Macaulay also judged correctly that the “vernaculars” (or languages spoken by the people) were also not as yet ready for the task. These vernaculars were indeed in varying degrees of impoverishment as a result of centuries of marginalization and subversion by Sanskrit(ists). (Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3)


In post-Independence India that prides itself being the world's largest democracy, it is the languages of the people that have to be restored to their rightful place. The resurgence of these languages will also lead to Hinduism being retrieved from the suffocating grips of Brahmanism / Varnashramam and eventually regenerated.

To link the revival of Sanskrit to the survival of Hinduism is akin to linking the revival of Latin to the survival of Christianity.

The Sanskritists / Brahmanists, who have appropriated much from the people of India over the ages, should get real. They should now work for the resurgence of the languages of the people. If not, they should at least NOT block the way.


Note 1:

1. Macaulay was certainly NOT worrying about India for altruistic reasons. Instead he was seeking to turn India into a more governable and profitable part of the British Empire, hopefully for all time to come. Fortunately, India was not situated in a region of the world where the Europeans would have had sought to establish white settler communities. In which case they would have proceeded by decimating - NOT educating - the native population, as it had happened in the New World (Americas) where 30 million natives (Amerindians) were eliminated within 30 years (at the rate of 1 million per year).

2. Macaulay was a brilliant son of Victorian England. He knew how Europe emerged from its medieval stagnation to conquer / colonize large parts of the rest of the world. That happened largely because of the production and diffusion of new knowledge: knowledge about the practical world (not of the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-pinhead variety!). It was all about the understanding and mastery of NATURE so as to improve the human condition in this world (something that was clearly NOT happening for a long time through the agency of religion).

3. The spread of such knowledge did not have to wait for formal education in schools and universities. The production and diffusion of knowledge was facilitated by the invention of the printing press (remember Gutenberg). This in turn paved the way for intellectual work to break out from the confines of Latin (through which the Church maintained its influence / control) to the vernaculars (e.g. English, German, French, etc.). The ascendance of vernaculars, in turn, led to a situation whereby much of the early inventions / innovations would emerge from practical people, the ’tinkerers’ of society like the artisans, craftsmen, etc. It was a case of PRACTICE leading the way, often leaving behind THEORY.

(What a contrast was the holy India of Vedic chants and elaborate yajnas?!
Here, ordinary but productive people - people doing productive or practically useful work - like all others, were trapped by their respective karmic Dharma, and it was only at the risk of violating their caste Dharma could they seek out better ways of doing their work OR seek doing some different work.)

4. It was this vernacular English (after more than 300 years of rapid development, including Shakespeare) that Macaulay was bringing to India as an imperial language. Such was the rapidity of the rise of vernacular English in status. The vernacular that displaced Latin in England was seen by eminent Indian reformists like Raja Rammohun Roy as a suitable replacement for Sanskrit in Indian education. It was a crucial first step towards liberating India from the age-old Sanskritic stranglehold (India's internal colonization). Without lifting the Sanskritic lid, the revival of the non-Sanskritic languages (or vernaculars) and traditions would be difficult to imagine. Without sweeping aside the stifling social order imposed by the Sanskritists / Brahmanists, India's huge human potential would remain forever grossly underdeveloped.


Note 2: (inserted 10 March 2006)

Dr K Ponmudy’s The Dravidian Movement and The Black Movement (1998) is packed with interesting perspectives on the British role in social change in India, but inexplicably omits any explicit mention or evaluation of Macaulay’s part. This seems to confirm how much of a hot potato Macaulay has proven to be for scholars for a long time. It is time that Macaulay’s role in India gets to be seen in an altogether new light.

Relevant excerpts (without the associated Notes and References / citations, but the headings and emphases are mine) from Dr Ponmudy’s remarkable book that is well-researched and packed with statistics (tables and charts):

Systems of education in India: Traditional vs Modern

“…… Two differences between the traditional and modern system of education, according to M N Srinivas (a noted anthropologist in India) were that the traditional schools had been restricted to upper caste children and transmitted mostly traditional knowledge. There were Hindu Patashalas, Buddhist monasteries and Muslim Madarasas. In all these schools, the curriculum was predominantly religious. They discouraged the spirit of free inquiry and resisted change. They taught in a language or languages foreign to the people at large. In the Hindu schools Sanskrit served as the medium of instruction and in the Muslim schools Arabic. One essential difference between the Hindu schools, and the Buddhist and the Muslim schools was that the former were designed for one favoured class or the community, and the latter were opened for all irrespective of their castes. Education in the Hindu schools was a means of training the pupil in accepting the existing caste structure of the Hindu society, in believing in the infallibility of the Vedas, and of the Brahmins in interpreting the Vedas. In the Manusmirithi it is stated that not only is the Sudra to be disgraced, in his body, but the caste law forbids him to read, or hear, the sacred Vedas. It is narrated in the Mahabharata, when Ekalaiva a person born in a lower caste, learnt archery secretly was caught and his right thumb was cut off. Valmiki’s Ramayana also narrates the story of Shambuka. Shambuka, a Sudra by birth went into deep meditation for twelve years. As the Sudras were not allowed to do meditation, the act of Shambuka was considered as a violation of caste rules and Rama himself marched against Shambuka and beheaded him for his temerity……” (p.29-30)


British rule as a prime mover of social change in India

“….. In India, the establishment of the British rule served as a prime mover of social change. In the USA, the emancipation of slavery in 1863 was the prime mover of social change. These two events caused or increased various other forces of modernization, particularly, affecting the hitherto oppressed or static groups of the society. The new factors introduced by the British rule in India, such as western education, jobs in the administration, urban sources of income, modern means of communication like railways, posts and telegraphs, printing press, adult franchise and local self governments affected the traditional group relations. “One obvious result” of the British rule as M N Srinivas explains, “was that books and journals, along with schools, made possible the transmission of modern as well as traditional knowledge to large numbers of Indians – knowledge which could no longer be the privilege of a few, hereditary groups – while the newspapers made people in different parts of the far-flung country realize they had common bonds, and that events happening in the world outside influenced their lives, for good or ill.” These forces gave a new sense of self-respect and power to low castes. Further, these forces increased social mobility…..

In the field of education in India, the Christian missionaries, the East India Company and the British Government played vital role in modernizing education. Though the primary object of the missionary schools was to spread Christianity, the people in the Sudra and untouchable castes were made to understand the value of education and thus it paved the way for increasing socialization of the lower groups. The minutes of Lord Auckland and Elphinstone written in 1838, states that there were (156) one hundred and fifty six missionary schools and 4944 pupils in the Tamil districts. As stated earlier, the East India Company and the British government in India also took interest in spreading modern education. One essential difference in the objectives of these prime movers is that the missionaries tried to spread education in order to spread Christianity, whereas the latter intended to produce more indigenous servants for the company and the government, ‘a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and intellect.’ After a long controversy between the Anglicists and the Orientalists over the system of education the government during Bentinck’s Governor-Generalship decided to implement the Western system of education in India. This was a death knell to the hitherto existed traditional system of education based on Hindu religious principles embodied in the Vedas and Upanishads and also to the progress of Sanskrit and Arabic learning. Another event, ‘the famous resolution of 7th March 1853, which stated that the promotion of European Literature and Science was to be the aim of British educational efforts’ henceforth paved the way for rapid advancement in the field of education. The Woods Despatch of 1854 and the subsequent encouragement given by the British government increased the number of schools and colleges in India which turned out tens of thousands of educated Indians versed in modern knowledge…..” (p.52–55)

Note 3: (inserted 10 March 2006)

Vedic conception of education

O.P.Sharma provides a glimpse of the Vedic conception of education in his INDIAN CULTURE: Ancient Glory and Present Gloom (1992):

“….. Adequate arrangements were made to impart education. Kautilya (click here) says, “Brahmans shall be provided with forests for religious learning, such forests being rendered safe from the dangers from animate and inanimate objects”. Education was the responsibility of the State is stated by Yajnavalkya thus: “Having made suitable houses in his city, the King should make the Brahmans settle there and having granted them stipends for learning the three Vedas, he should say “Follow your own Vocation”. To quote Kautilya again, “Those learned in the Vedas shall be granted Brahmadeya lands yielding sufficient produce and exempted from taxes and fines.”

Evidently teachers were held in high esteem by the society and their mundane needs were taken care of by the public and the State. The acquisition of knowledge and its dissemination involved self-restraint, suffering and sacrifice – a sort of penance. No wonder wealth and power paid homage to wisdom of which teaches were embodiment……. By and large, Brahmans adopted teaching as a profession because they had aptitude for this vocation. But here it is worth while to point out that teaching was not the exclusive preserve of Brahmans. Non-Brahmans too who had excelled in intellectual accomplishments could take to teaching. Among non-Brahmans teachers, names of Janak, Ajatasatru and Jaivali are shining examples. These non-Brahman teachers enjoyed no less veneration from their students.

While imparting education to students no discrimination was made on the grounds of sex and Varna. For poor students provision of scholarships and stipends was made…… While imparting instruction to the pupil the teacher took into account his caliber and aptitude. It was not considered worthwhile to waste time and energy on those students who had no appetite for intellectual pursuits. It was the considered view of educationists that heredity was more important than environment. A saying goes: “A bamboo tree cannot blossom into a sandal plant simply because it is assiduously watered and manured”…..” (p.27-28)

The above clearly bears out the discrimination that existed in matters of education, as in all else, in a society organized according to the Brahmanist doctrine of Varnashrama (as extensively codified in the Manusmrti). As education was meant (according to ManuDharma) for the Brahmans, all facilities and amenities were to be provided by the State (or King) to the Brahmans for that purpose. The non-Brahmans were left to their own means to seek cultivation / education in a society where, as stated above, “heredity was more important than environment”, i.e. nature (birth) was more important than nurture. This is diametrically opposite to the Dravidian ideal of society as expounded by the saint Thiruvalluvar (ஐயன் திருவள்ளுவர்) in his Thirukkural (திருக்குறள்). It was the misfortune of Indian society that Manu's Dharma sidelined Kural’s ARam (அறம்) more than 2,000 years ago.


Related blogs:

'Sanskritisation': Definition or Deflection? (28 Feb 2006)

Dumbing down of Hindu society (1): 'Mother of All (Open) Secrets' (14 Aug 2005)

Hinduism: its caste system & priesthood (18 June 2005)

Jayankanthan and Tamil language sentiments (09 June 2005)


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com