There is nothing sacrosanct about traditional Indian literature, whether it is Vedas, Bhagavad Geeta or Manusmriti. At least, our research group does not advocate any such attitude towards either Indian traditional literature or culture. We do not have to support or hesitate to criticise these texts, when found ‘unethical’, unscientific or ‘dangerous’. However, the question is, are we prepared to use the same tools of criticism when we take up a text of (say) Ambedkar or Phule to read? If not, why not?
As we researchers, we definitely advocate a caution and even a touch of generosity in the way we handle these texts. Ambedkar and Phule were writing a century ago. Today we have the benefit of the developments in social sciences and other fields of knowledge of over hundred years, which they lacked. Our criticism of these thinkers should be sensitive to the context in which they worked and aware of the benefit of hindsight that we have. If so, think how cautious and considerate should one be while dealing with the texts written thousands of years ago? Unless one is sure of what ethics made the books like Manusmriti or Kamasutra possible, one cannot raise any moral objections to them. All that we can say is that we cannot use their insights and instructions in the present time uncritically. Let us also remember a well-established fact that these forgotten texts were brought into usage only during the colonial rule in the 19th century.
Before we continue, here is a post by Balu (#1180), where he is replying to a few questions raised by Kannan and Divya with regard to the difficulties in interpreting ancient Indian texts.
The problem about translating ‘sruti’ is not as easy as it has been made out to be. Is it possible to translate it as ‘revelation’ or even as ‘divine revelation’? Because it has so far been translated in this manner, we can only conclude that it is indeed possible to do so. Next issue: how accurate is this translation? The answer to this question depends upon what ‘revelation’ or ‘divine revelation’ is supposed to mean.
If one does not want to prejudge the issue about the nature of Indian traditions, in the first place, we need to give credence to the fact that ‘sruti’ is what is heard. Committing the Veda’s into writing has always lagged behind the transmission of the oral tradition. Not only because writing was a later invention, but also because singing the hymns in a right manner (which has always been a question of oral transmission in India) is as important as reciting the verses accurately. Furthermore, unlike in other places in the world, the discovery of script did not put an end to oral transmission in India. Even to this day, literacy supports orality – a fact of great significance when we discuss about the alleged conflict between orality and literacy.
The second point, the one that Divya makes, is that Veda’s are supposed to be ‘apaurusheya’. How to understand this Sanskrit word? It merely translates as ‘not (of ) from purusha’. Who or what is the Purusha? Is there a contrast here between ‘Purusha’ and ‘Prakruti’? The latter can be broadly translated as ‘Nature’. Is the claim that the ‘sruti’ originates in Nature? If this reading is acceptable, then unless Prakruti is seen as ‘divine’, ‘sruti’ cannot be translated as Divine revelation.
Thirdly, even if this contrast is not drawn, it is difficult to see how ‘apaurusheya’ can be translated as ‘divine’ revelation without making the notion of ‘divinity’ into an unexplained concept. The ‘divine’ in the Semitic religions is an entity with person-like characteristics: God has Will, purpose and acts according to His will. (These properties make some entity into a person). The word ‘apaurusheya’ denies this notion of personhood (translating ‘purusha’ as ‘person’) to that which delivers the message. Is it something like "akaashavani" (literally the voice of the sky)? In that case what does the notion of divinity mean if we call sruti the ‘divine revelation’? What is ‘divine’ about ‘akaasha’? In any case, what is ‘divine’ about ‘sruti’? Consequently, those who want to translate apaurusheya as ‘divine revelation’ will have to build a theology first. That is, they have to explain what ‘divinity’ means before assuring us that sruti is ‘divine revelation’.
Fourthly, what is the revelation in the Veda’s? Only that which is hidden can be revealed, if we go by the meaning of the word. I have yet to come across someone who is able to tell me what was ‘hidden’ before the Veda’s ‘revealed’ it to us. Is it the existence of Indra? Or of agni? Or of Soma? Or of what? Does sruti reveal what is hidden from ‘hearing’? Or does it reveal what is hidden from sight? Or does it reveal what is hidden behind the veil of ignorance? In which case, to what is it revealed? To the ear? To the eyes? To Manas? In short, it simply raises finitely many questions without ever having the hope of answering them without constructing some elaborate theory.
The third and the fourth point tell us that linguistic translation is not the issue here, but one of theoretical interpretation. Consequently, asking a Sanskritist will not solve our problem. The Sanskritist will simply say that he has been ‘taught’ that Sruti means ‘revelation’ or even ‘divine revelation’.
The earliest appearance of the Purusha Sukta is in the Rig-Veda, as the 90th Sukta of its 10th mandala, with 16 mantras. The 12th mantra, given below, is the most infamous mantra in the modern times.
braahmano asya mukhamaaseet | baahoo raajanyah krtah |
ooroo tadasya yad vaishyah | padbhyaam shoodro ajaayata ||
As Ambedkar wrote in his essay “The Riddle of the Shudras”, Purusha Sukta “preaches a class composed society as its ideal. … [This mantra] does no more than recognize the sort of class composition that existed in the India-Aryan society”. Such claims are based on the standard interpretations of this mantra that take this mantra to mean that Brahmins sprang up (that is, were born) from Purusha’s face, kshatriyas (kings) from his shoulders, vaishyas from his thighs and shudras from his feet. But notice the verbs: ajaayata, krta and aaseet. These are not at all similar. One does not need an M.A or PhD in Sanskrit from Heidelberg, UPenn, Deccan College or a special award from BORI to notice the foregoing.
The verse does not state that braahmana is BORN from His face, kshatriya is BORN from His shoulders, and vaishya is BORN from His thighs. Rather, it says thus:
(His) face is seated by braahmana;
raaja is made by His shoulders;
similarly vaishya (is made) from His thighs;
shoodra is born from His feet.
Also in the same purusha sukta it is stated that the manifest universe sprang from his feet/quarter (paado-sya vishvaa bhootaani, tripaadasyaamr’tamdivi). Thus, "padbhyaam shoodro ajaayata" only re-states this: all that are born (that is, this whole manifest universe and all beings) are providers of service to Him (that is, shudras).
This shows that producing knowledge about Indian culture and her traditions is not indifferent on the competence of Sanskrit as it is made out to be (VNR #3073).
The story of Purushsukta, says Balu, is interpreted in such a way that it is consistent with an internal aspect of European activities in India. To put it in his own words, “the western missionaries recruited primarily from the groups with ‘Jatis’. Their virulent anti-Brahmanism (something that the Muslim and the Lingayat movements share) forced them to seek recruits from these Jatis and, consequently, could see the salient diversities only in terms of Jatis. Not only that. Their own society was vertically classified: the hierarchical classification of some of these Jatis reinforced their idea of a hierarchically classified social structure (or, social organisation, as they saw the issue). All salient diversities were ‘seen’ as being organised around ‘the caste system’. That is, the presence of Jatis in Indian Christianity partly led to their belief in the existence of ‘the caste system’ in India. The metaphor of Purusha Sukta illustrates the bias of such an interpretation. Why should human body be ‘seen’ as a vertical hierarchy with ‘top’ and bottom’ that are correlated to the ‘higher’ and the ‘lower’? (Expressing also the moral evaluation that the ‘higher’ is better than the ‘lower’.) Nowhere in Purusha Sukta does it say that the primeval man was standing straight-up when he was sacrificed. Not a trivial matter, because if the body is lying down (besides, a favourite position for sacrifice), there is no ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ any more than there is a vertical hierarchy. There is simply a horizontal division of different body parts. However, this non-obvious interpretation of the famous verse got added to the totally unrelated issue of ‘untouchability’. (Because, ‘untouchability’ is an inter-individual relation and not an ‘inter-caste’ relation.) Thus, we have three things, unrelated to each other that come together in the creation of the caste-system: the organisation of some salient diversities as Jati’s by some people In India; an anti-Brahmanism that basically confined Christianity (and Islam and the Lingayats) to a recruiting base comprised of those having Jati’s; a forced interpretation of the Purusha Sukta, that was driven by their own vertically organised society and the internal hierarchies among some of the Jati’s.”[1]
Perhaps, Manusmriti is the most hated Indian traditional text. In 1927, on the Christmas day, a copy of the Manusmriti was burnt in public by Ambedkar during the "Maha-Sangharsha" of Mahad Satyagraha. Today, “Manu Smruti Dahan Din” is observed in different parts of India every year on December 25. The following comments by Ambedkar will give you a sense of the kind of hatred and the reasons behind it.
“It might be argued that the inequality prescribed by Manu in his Smriti is after all of historical importance. It is past history and cannot be supposed to have any bearing on the present conduct of the Hindu. I am sure nothing can be greater error than this. Manu is not a matter of the past. It is even more than a past of the present. It is a ‘living past’ and therefore as really present as any present can be. That the inequality laid down by Manu was the law of the land under the pre-British days may not be known to many foreigners. Only a few instances will show that such was the case.”[2]
A talk by S.N. Balagangadhara in Kannada on Varnasankara
Much has been written about this work in the recent past, by eminent historians, showing how this text was brought into the mainstream during the colonial period, giving it an importance that it never had in the past. As a recent book explains,
The Burmese Buddhist work Dhammathat, and edition of the Manusmrti, provides a very interesting account of the emergence of the candalas. According to this work, a wicked brahman killed his young wife, so his fellow brahmans, greatly agitated over the bestial streak in the offender, as reflected in his intent to kill a living being, turned him out of society and caused him to be called a Tsandala, “and from that the Tsandala class became a distinct one for the most wicked and incorrigible brahmans”. The Tsandala brahman is one of the nine kinds of brahmans recorded in the Dhammathat, some of the others being Hindu Brahmans and brahman Buddhists. As a matter of fact the Chinese and other foreign sources speak of the brahmans “as a nation or tribe and not as priestly order” (Sharma 2005: xi).[3]
Often a few shlokas are presented from the text
Explain: 1:31, 87-91, 92-105; 2:31-32, 155, 241; 3: 13, 17, 111, 155-157, 191, 239, 241, 249
Contrast them with: 2:109 (those who can give money can be taught!), 118, 128 (birth is not enough to be a good Brahmin), 136-138, 157, 238; 3: 12, 14, 92-93, 112,
Women: 2:123, 129, 138, 145, 213; 3: 56-60, 114,
This shloka appears in the early part of the first chapter when he is talking about the way the world is created. Today, in context of our modern common sense, this chapter looks like a fairy tale where … happens. If we take it as a science then it is nothing more than a tale. Why not just criticize this shloka as a unscientific story about the world? Only if we can discern the ethics of the day we can raise moral objections to it. Has anyone done that so far?
[1] Excerpted from S.N. Balagangadhara’s unpublished monograph written in 2002: “Notes towards the Study of the Caste System in India”.
[2] See “Manu and the Shudras” (Accessed 4 February 2011): http://www.ambedkar.org/ambcd/57.%20Manu%20and%20the%20Shudras.htm
[3] The sentences in quotation marks within the quote are from: Remusat, Abel, et al. 1990. The Pilgrimage of Fa-Hian. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.