It is said that “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. Bharat has often fallen victim to such good intentions from our social and political leaders. A recent example is a report by retired High Court judge, Thiru K. Chandru, on resolving caste divisions. However, before analysing the report, I would like to share my concern about the selective reformism of ‘secular’ Hindu (even if in name) leaders. Their focus remains solely on reforming Hindu society, neglecting other religions and sects.
We can leave aside the pre-Independence period when the British agenda was to keep society under their thumb, for which they did their best to create self-hate and low self-esteem in Indian society through every possible means, including inventing new theories like the Aryan Invasion theory and the north-south divide. They also institutionalised the caste system, exacerbating social divisions and undermining our once equitable education system. Unfortunately, we are still grappling with the consequences of these divisive strategies.
The first gift that the Jawaharlal Nehru government post-Independence gave us was the Hindu Code Bill, though the Congress leaders had decided that Bharat would pursue the path of secularism, which would ordinarily mean that there would not be separate laws in the name of religion. However, we had Articles 25 to 30 favouring minorities and discriminating against the majority. The writers of the Indian Constitution never defined ‘minority’. The definition of Hindus was also a negative definition – those who were not Muslims, Christians, Parsis and Jews – meaning the people following religions born outside Bharat. A Times of India article notes that when Dr B R Ambedkar asked the Constituent Assembly to adopt the Uniform Civil Code, the Muslim members staunchly opposed it. All he could get was Article 44 of Directive principles commending the adoption of UCC.
Thus, the effort to draft a common civil code culminated in the Hindu Code Bill, while other communities continued to be governed by their own personal laws. Notably, issues like dowry, adoption, polygamy, and divorce transcended religious boundaries, impacting other communities as well. Yet, they were left to grapple with orthodox laws, often rife with regressive and anti-women practices. Nehru felt that enacting a uniform code in the aftermath of Partition would fuel insecurity amongst the Muslims who chose to remain in India. (ibid)
Nehru and subsequent Congress governments also opposed any laws to stop conversions, despite their own government in Madhya Pradesh conducting a thorough study of the conversion mafia. Nehru’s own statements suggest a naive belief that the Church’s conversion activities were motivated solely by a desire to “reform” Hindu society—a misguided attempt to uplift individuals from a “casteist” to a supposedly “casteless” faith.
Just as India was embracing modernisation and progress, the Shah Bano case tragically reversed any momentum for reform within Muslim society. Rajiv Gandhi, Nehru’s grandson and then-Prime Minister, controversially amended the Constitution to deny Muslim women the right to alimony following divorce. This short-sighted move effectively slammed the door on the possibility of reforming Muslim Personal Laws through judicial means.
The Mandal Commission was instituted to address the ills of Hindu society stemming from casteism. However, it did not address similar issues affecting Muslims and Christians. There was no scrutiny of the existence of separate churches among Christians or the prevalent caste bias within them, particularly against Dalits and Scheduled Tribes. Likewise, the nearly 72 sects within Islam, often at odds with each other and accused of perpetuating caste-based oppression, escaped similar scrutiny and calls for reform. Politicians primarily responded by incorporating many of these groups into SC-ST and OBC reservations, overlooking that their conversions were originally motivated by caste-based oppression. Once again, only Hindus were burdened with the responsibility for societal reform.
Dravida Kazhagam-led reform movements were also meant only for Hindus, no other communities. Ironically, despite decades of uninterrupted rule, the oppression of ‘lower caste’ Hindus by ‘higher caste Hindus’—not Brahmins—has persisted, even though the majority of Brahmins have been largely marginalised in Tamil Nadu. In fact, a one-man committee was constituted under retired Madras High Court judge, K. Chandru, last August after two Dalit siblings were brutally assaulted by their relatively upper-caste classmates in Tirunelveli. This latest effort to ‘reform’ Hindu society is being undertaken by the DMK government.
Tamil Nadu has witnessed violence against Dalits by both Muslims and relatively upper-caste Hindus, despite the state being governed by champions of social equality from various factions of the Dravida Kazhagam (DK). A careful reading of the news reveals such incidents occurring regularly. Ironically, almost all iterations of the DK in the political arena draw their support from specific castes and communities. It happens only in India that parties that denounce casteism and advocate for a casteless society are built upon caste-based voter blocs. This trend is observable in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar as well, where purported followers of Lohia have transformed into caste-centric parties like the Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Lok Dal, and numerous smaller splinter groups.
The recent report by Justice Kundru proposes the periodic transfer of high school and higher secondary school teachers to prevent them from serving extended tenures in one location, especially in areas where their own caste holds influence. On the administrative front, the report suggests that chief educational officers, district educational officers, block educational officers, and headmasters of high and higher secondary schools should not be posted in regions dominated by their caste. This assumes that teachers are also impacted by caste biases.
Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar became Dr B.R. Ambedkar because his teacher, a member of a higher caste, gave him his surname. He was able to pursue education because Maharaja Sayajirao Gaekwad III, another member of a higher caste, provided him with financial support. However, our leaders seem intent on perpetuating caste-based compartmentalisation.
Other recommendations include banning caste markers such as wristbands, rings, or forehead marks on school premises. However, unless we change internally, these external efforts may not be effective. After the JP Narayan movement, many leaders opted to drop their surnames and adopt the ubiquitous ‘Kumar’ as their surname. Did this stop caste politics? Nitish Kumar is still considered a leader of Kurmis.
While leaders should work diligently to reform Indian society by fostering values of non-discrimination, instilling discipline, and promoting patriotism that transcends regional, religious, and caste divisions, we witness the paradox of removing signs of caste and religion that connect individuals to their larger community and inspire adherence to good practices. If these signs are deemed discriminatory, why not advocate for the removal of similar practices and symbols in other communities? Shouldn’t efforts be made to discourage division by banning the wearing of crosses, topis, burqas, etc?
Interestingly, the champions of reforming Hindu society—political parties, with the exception of the Dravida Kazhagam (DK), the Communist Party of India (Marxist), Viduthalai Chiruthaigal Katchi (VCK), and Vaiko’s Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (MDMK)—also refrained from participating in the deliberations, including the ruling DMK. It shows that these parties basically wish to thrive on caste divisions; reforms are a sham. The report is another attempt to concretise the divisions.
Hard data proves that when Hindus rise above caste divisions, the Bharatiya Janata Party scores well. Conversely, when Hindus are divided into caste groups, divisive forces have a field day. The Congress and parties like the SP and DMK have arguably promoted casteism in the name of reforms. Their goal, some argue, is to weaken Hindu society and strengthen minority communalism. This could explain their silence on social ills perpetuated in the name of other religions.
It is time for Hindus to reform themselves and not let casteist and communal forces exploit them and weaken society.
The writer is a well-known author and political commentator. He has written several books on RSS like RSS 360, Sangh & Swaraj, RSS: Evolution from an Organisation to a Movement, Conflict Resolution: The RSS Way, and done a PhD on RSS. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
Comments
0 comment