[Assam] A piece every born Hindu Assamese (except Brhamans perhaps) likely to find thought provoking to orient himself or herself on the backdrop of pre-Brahmanic cast and class less Pragjyotishpur/Kamrup.

[Bartta Bistar]

 Why I Am Not a Hindu Ramendra
Nath<http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ramendra_nath/>
http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm
------------------------------

*... I cannot help if the system is so unjust and so out of tune with out
existing values that even an objective exposition reads like a severe
condemnation. ...*
 ------------------------------

*Originally published by Bihar Rationalist Society (Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj)
1993. **
*

I have read and admired Bertrand Russell's *Why I Am Not a Christian*. On
the other hand, I have also read and disagreed with M.K.Gandhi's *Why I Am a
Hindu*. My acquaintance with these writings has inspired me to write this
essay explaining why I am not a Hindu, though I was born in a Hindu family.
The Meaning of "Hindu"

The word "Hindu" is a much-abused word in the sense that it has been used to
mean different things at different times. For example, some people even now,
at least some times, use the word "Hindu" as a synonym for "Indian". In this
sense of the term, I am certainly a "Hindu" because I do not deny being an
Indian. However, I do not think that this a proper use of the term "Hindu".
There are many Indians such as Muslims, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians as
well as rationalists, humanists and atheists who do not call themselves
"Hindu" and also do not like to be described as such. It is certainly not
fair to convert them into Hinduism by giving an elastic definition of the
term "Hindu". Besides, it is also not advisable to use the word "Hindu" in
this sense from the point of view of clarity. The word "Hindu" may have been
used in the beginning as a synonym for "Indian"
[1]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn1>,
but, at present, the word is used for people with certain definite religious
beliefs. The word "Hindu" belongs to the category of words like "Muslim",
"Christian", "Buddhist" and "Jain" and not to the category of words like
"American", "British", "Australian", "Chinese" or "Japanese". *There are, in
fact, many Indians who are not Hindus, and on the other hand, there are many
Hindus who are not Indians *, for example, those who are citizens of Nepal,
Sri Lanka and some other countries.

In the religious sense, the word, "Hindu" is often used broadly to include
Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs in addition to those who are described as "Hindu"
in this most restricted sense of the term, that is, the adherents of Vedic
or Brahmin religion. For example, the expression "Hindu" is used in the
Hindu law not only for those who are Hindu by religion but also for persons
who are Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs by religion. This, again, is too broad a
definition of "Hindu". If we consistently use the word "Hindu" in this
sense, we will have to say that Japan is a Hindu country!

The above definition of "Hindu" is clearly inadequate from a philosophical
point of view. Buddhism and Jainism, for instance, explicitly reject the
doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas and the system of *
varna-vyavastha*, which are fundamental to Hinduism, that is, if the term
"Hinduism" is used in its most restricted sense. Therefore, clubbing
together Buddhists and Jains or even Sikhs with those who believe in the
infallibility of the Vedas and subscribe to the *varna-vyavastha* is nothing
but an invitation to confusion.

Though I agree with Buddhism in its rejection of god, soul, infallibility of
the Vedas and the *varna-vyavastha*, still I am not a Hindu even in this
broad sense of the term "Hindu", because as a rationalist and humanist I
reject all religions including Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism. However, in
this essay I am concerned with explaining why I am not a Hindu in the most
appropriate sense of the term "Hindu", that is, the sense in which a person
is a Hindu if his religion is Hinduism in the restricted sense of the term "
Hinduism". In this restricted sense of "Hinduism", Buddhism, Jainism and
Sikhism are excluded from its scope. I also maintain that this is, at
present, probably the most popular sense of the term, and every body should,
in the interest of clarity, confine its use, as far as possible, to this
sense only, at least in philosophical discourse.

Radhakrishnan, for example, has used the term "Hindu" and "Hinduism" in this
restricted sense when he says in his *The Hindu View of Life *that, "The
chief sacred scriptures of Hindus, the Vedas register the intuitions of the
perfected souls."
[2]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn2>Or,
when he says that "Hinduism is the religion not only of the Vedas but
of
the Epics and the Puranas."
[3]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn3>
Basic Beliefs of Hinduism

Gandhi, too, has used the term "Hindu" in this restricted sense, when
writing in *Young India *in October, 1921, he says:

I call myself a *sanatani* Hindu, because,

1.      I believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all that
goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in *avatars* and
rebirth.

2.      I believe in the *Varnashram dharma *in a sense in my opinion
strictly Vedic, but not in its present popular and crude sense.

3.      I believe in the protection of the cow in its much larger sense than
the popular.

4.      I do not disbelieve in idol-worship.
[4]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn4>

One may be tempted to ask, at this point, whether all the beliefs listed by
Gandhi are really fundamental to Hinduism. In my opinion, (I) the belief in
the authenticity of the Vedas and (II) the belief in the *varnashram dharma
*are more basic to Hinduism than the belief in cow-protection and
idol-worship. [5]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn5>Though
it cannot be denied that, in spite of attempts by reformers like
Kabir, Rammohan Roy and Dayanand Saraswati, idol-worship is still practiced
widely by the Hindu masses, and there is, at present, a taboo on eating beef
among a large number of Hindus. In any case, I am in a position to establish
the fact of my not being a Hindu by asserting the contradictory of each of
the above statements made by Gandhi:

In other words, I assert that I am not a Hindu, because,

1.      I do not believe in the Vedas, the Upanishads, the Puranas and all
that goes by the name of Hindu scriptures, and therefore in *avatars* and
rebirth.

2.      I do not believe in the *varnashram dharma *or
*varna-vyavastha*either in the sense in which it is explained in Hindu
*dharma shastras *like *Manusmriti* or in the so-called Vedic sense.

3.      I do not believe in the Hindu taboo of not eating beef.

4.      I disbelieve in idol-worship.

However, while explaining why I am not a Hindu, I will concentrate mainly on
(I) the belief in the authenticity of the Vedas, and (II) the *varnashram
dharma *, which I consider more fundamental to Hinduism. Besides, in the
concluding section of the essay, I will briefly discuss *moksha*, which is
regarded as the highest end of life in Hinduism, and some other Hindu
doctrines like *karmavada *and *avatarvada.*
The infallibility of the Vedas

First of all, let me explain what do I mean by saying that "I do not believe
in the Vedas", and why I do not do so.

The schools of ancient Indian thought are generally classified by orthodox
Hindu thinkers into two broad categories, namely, orthodox ( *astika*) and
heterodox ( *nastika*). The six main Hindu systems of thought -- Mimamsa,
Vedanta, Sankhya, Yoga, Nyaya and Vaisheshika -- are regarded as orthodox (
*astika*), not because they believe in the existence of god, but because
they accept the authority of the Vedas.
[6]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn6>

Out of the six orthodox systems of Hindu thought, Nyaya system is primarily
concerned with the conditions of correct thinking and the means of acquiring
true knowledge. According to Nyaya system, there are four distinct and
separate sources of knowledge, namely, (i) perception (ii) inference (iii)
comparison, and (iv) testimony or *shabda*.

*Shabda*, which is defined in the Nyaya system as "valid verbal testimony"
is further classified into (i) the scriptural (*vaidika*), and (ii) the
secular (*laukika*). *Vaidika or scriptural testimony is believed to be the
word of god, and therefore, it is regarded as perfect and infallible
*.[7]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn7>

Mimamsa or Purva Mimamsa, another orthodox Hindu system is "the outcome of
the ritualistic side of the vedic culture". However, in its attempt to
justify the authority of the Vedas, Mimamsa elaborately discusses different
sources of valid knowledge. Naturally enough, among the various "sources of
valid knowledge", Mimamsa pays greatest attention to testimony or authority,
which, too, is regarded by it as a valid source of knowledge. There are,
according to Mimamsa, two kinds of authority -- personal (*paurusheya*) and
impersonal (*apaurusheya*). The authority of the Vedas is regarded by
Mimamsa as impersonal.
[8]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn8>

As mentioned earlier, according to Nyaya, the authority of the Vedas is
derived from their being the words of god. But Mimamsa, which does not
believe in the existence of god, declares that the Vedas like the world, are
eternal. They are not the work of any person, human or divine. The
infallibility of the authority of the Vedas, according to Mimamsa, rests on
the "fact" that they are not vitiated by any defect to which the work of
imperfect persons is liable.
[9]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn9>

Thus, orthodox Hindu schools like Nyaya and Mimamsa regard the testimony of
the Vedas as infallible, though they give different reasons for doing so.
Well-known orthodox Hindu theologians like Shankar and Ramanuja believed in
the authority of the Vedas. *Manusmriti*, too, upholds the infallibility of
the Vedas. As pointed out by S.N.Dasgupta, "The validity and authority of
the Vedas were acknowledged by all Hindu writers and they had wordy battles
over it with the Buddhists who denied it."
[10]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn10>

The point worth noting is that though popularly Hinduism is a theistic
religion, *it is not essential to believe in the existence of god for being
an orthodox Hindu -- belief in the authority of the Vedas is more important.
*

When I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", what I mean is that *I do not
regard the testimony of the Vedas as a valid source of knowledge. *In other
words when I say, "I do not believe in the Vedas", I do not mean that each
and every proposition contained in the Vedas is false. It is quite possible
that one may find a few true statements in the Vedas after great amount of
patient research. But I assert that the truth or the falsity of a
proposition is logically independent of its being contained or not contained
in the Vedas. A proposition is true if there is a correspondence between the
belief expressed by it and the facts. Otherwise, it is false. So, a
proposition contained in the Vedas might be true, that is, if there is a
correspondence between the belief expressed by it and the facts, but it is,
I insist, not true *because* it is contained in the Vedas. I categorically
reject as invalid every argument of the form: "The proposition P is
contained in the Vedas. *Therefore*, the proposition P is true".

Besides, I also assert that some propositions contained in the Vedas are
certainly false. For example, according to *Purusha-Sukta* of *Rig Veda *, *
Brahmins*, *Kshatriyas*, *Vaishyas* and *Shudras *originated respectively
from the mouth, hands, thighs and feet of the *purusha* or the creator. I
categorically reject this statement as false. I maintain that *
varna-vyavastha* is a man-made social institution and it has nothing to do
with the alleged creator of this world.

I also reject both the reasons put forward in support of the infallibility
of the Vedas. I neither regard them to be "the words of god" nor I consider
them to be eternal and impersonal. I believe that Vedas were conceived,
spoken and written by human beings. The question of their being "words of
god" simply does not arise, because there are no good reasons for believing
in the existence of god. The existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and
benevolent god is totally inconsistent with the presence of suffering and
evil in this world. It is impossible for god to exist.
[11]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn11>

Similarly, Vedas could not have come into existence before human beings
appeared on this earth, and before Sanskrit language came into existence.
And there are no good reasons for believing that Sanskrit language came into
existence even before human beings appeared on this earth!

As far as Gandhi is concerned, though he liked to describe himself as a *
sanatani* Hindu, he was, in fact, not a completely orthodox Hindu. For
example, in the article quoted earlier in this essay Gandhi goes on to add,
"I do not believe in the exclusive divinity of the Vedas. *I believe the
Bible, the Koran, and the Zend-Avesta to be as much divinely inspired as the
Vedas. *My belief in the Hindu scriptures *does not require me to accept
every word and every verse as divinely inspired, *I decline to be bound by
any interpretation, however learned in may be, *if it is repugnant to reason
or moral sense.
*"[12]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn12>(emphasis
mine)

I seriously doubt that this position will be acceptable to an orthodox
Hindu. In fact, Gandhi's position comes very close to that of rationalists
and humanists when he says that "I decline to be bound by any interpretation
however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason and moral sense".
However, since he refused to say in so many words that he did not believe in
the authority of the Vedas, Gandhi may be described, in my opinion, as a
liberal Hindu with an eclectic approach towards religion. On the other hand,
my position is radically different from that of Gandhi, because I do not
consider either the Vedas or the Bible, the Koran and Zend-Avesta or any
other book to be divinely inspired.
*Varna-vyavastha*

Before discussing *varna-vyavastha* or *varnashram dharma*, let me clarify
in the very beginning that I am not interested in giving my own
interpretation of what *varna-vyavastha* is or ought to be in its ideal
form. I am interested, firstly, in giving an objective exposition of *
varna-vyavastha* as contained in recognized Hindu scriptures like Vedas and
*dharmashastras* like *Manusmriti*; and secondly, in mentioning my reasons
for rejecting *varna-vyavastha*. In doing so I will concentrate on the
*chaturvarnya
*(four-fold division of society) aspect of *varna-vyavastha*.

We have already noted that the first reference to *varna* (class based on
birth or caste) is to be found in the *Purusha-Sukta* of the *Rig Veda *.
The reference to the four *ashrams *or stages of life, namely, *Brahmcharya*,
*Garhastya*, *Vanprashta *and *Sanyas* is to be found in the Upanishads.
These are, in their turn, related to the four *purusarthas* or ends of life,
namely, *dharma* (duty), *artha *(wealth), *kama *(satisfaction of sensual
desires) and *moksha* (liberation). Out of these, the Upanishads attach
maximum value to *sanyas ashram *and *moksha* *purusartha*, which is
regarded as the highest end of life.
[13]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn13>

The system of *varnashram dharma *is upheld by popular Hindu scriptures like
*Ramayana*, *Mahabharata *and *Bhagvat-Gita*. In *Ramayana*, for example,
Ram kills Shambuka simply because he was performing *tapasya* (ascetic
exercises) which he was not supposed to do as he was a *Shudra* by birth.
[14] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn14>

Similarly, in *Mahabharata*, Dronacharya refuses to teach archery to
Eklavya, because he was not a *Kshatriya *by birth. When Eklavya, treating
Drona as his notional guru, learns archery on his own, Drona makes him cut
his right thumb as *gurudakshina* (gift for the teacher) so that he may not
become a better archer than his favorite *Kshatriya* student Arjuna!

The much-glorified *Bhagvat-Gita*, too, favors
*varna-vyavastha*.[15]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn15>When
Arjuna refuses to fight, one of his main worries was that the war
would
lead to the birth of *varna-sankaras* or offspring from intermixing of
different *varnas *and the consequent "downfall" of the family.
[16]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn16>On
the other hand, Krishna tries to motivate Arjuna to fight by saying
that
it was his *varna-dharma* (caste-duty) to do so because he was a *Kshatriya*.
In fact, Krishna goes to the extent of claiming that the four *varnas* were
created by him only.
[17]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn17>Thus,
Arjuna's main problem was being born a
*Kshatriya*. Had he been a *Brahmin* or a *Vaishya* or a *Shudra *by birth,
he would have been spared the trouble of fighting a destructive war. Even
the much-applauded doctrine of *niskama karma *is nothing but an exhortation
to faithfully perform one's *varnashram dharma *in a disinterested manner.
[18] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn18>

The celebrated orthodox Hindu theologian Shankar, too, was a supporter of *
varna-vyavastha*. According to him, *Shudras* are not entitled to
philosophical knowledge.
[19]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn19>However,
the most elaborate exposition of
*varnashram dharma *is to be found in *Manusmriti*, an important *
dharmashastra* of Hindus. Let us turn to it in order to have a close look at
the *varna-vyavastha*.
*Manusmriti*

In the very first chapter of *Manusmriti*, it is clearly stated that *
Brahmins*, *Kshatriyas*, *Vaishyas *and *Shudras *were created by
*Brahma*(creator of this world) from his mouth, hands, thighs and feet
respectively.
[20] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn20>

Manu claims that the same *Brahma*, who created this world, also
created *Manusmriti
*and taught it to him.
[21]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn21>

The duties of the different *varnas* are also mentioned in the *Manusmriti*.
The *Brahmins* were created for teaching, studying, performing *yajnas
*(ceremonial
sacrifices), getting *yajnas* performed, giving and accepting *dan *(gifts).
[22] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn22>The
*Kshatriyas *were created for protecting the citizens, giving gifts, getting
*yajnas *performed and studying.
[23]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn23>The
*Vaishyas* were created for protecting animals, giving gifts, getting *
yajnas* performed, studying, trading, lending money on interest and doing
agricultural work.
[24]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn24>The
*Shudras *were created by *Brahma *for serving *Brahmins *and the other two
*varnas* without being critical of them.
[25]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn25>

It is interesting to note that studying, getting *yajnas *performed and
giving gifts or charity are common duties of *Brahmins*, *Kshatriyas *and *
Vaishyas*; whereas teaching, accepting gifts and performing *yajnas* are
reserved exclusively for *Brahmins*. The Shudras, of course, are denied the
rights to study, getting *yajnas* performed by *Brahmins* or even giving
gifts to them.

*Manusmriti* further states that having originated from the mouth of *Brahma
*, being elder and being the repository of the Vedas; *Brahmins* are the
masters of the entire universe.
[26]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn26>Besides,
*Brahmins* alone act as a sort of post office for transmitting food to the
gods and the dead, that is to say, the gods and the dead eat food through
the mouths of *Brahmins* (apparently because they do not have mouths of
their own). Therefore, no one can be superior to
*Brahmins*.[27]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn27>All
others are said to enjoy everything owing to the
*Brahmins' *mercy.[28]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn28>The
*Manusmriti* clearly states that *Brahmins* alone are entitled to teach this
*dharmashastra *and none else.
[29]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn29>

*Manusmriti *refers to the Vedas, which are to be regarded as the main valid
source of knowledge about *dharma*, as *shruti* and to *dharmashastras* as *
smriti*. No one is to argue critically about them because religion has
originated from them.
[30]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn30>Any
*nastika* (non-believer) or critic of the Vedas, who "insults" them on the
basis of logic, is worthy of being socially boycotted by "noble" persons.
[31] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn31>

In short, the main features of *chaturvarnya *as elaborated in the *Manusmriti
*are as follows:

1. Division of Hindu society into four *varnas* on the basis of birth. Out
of these only the first three, namely *, Brahmins *, *Kshatriya* and *
Vaishya*, who are collectively known as *dwija* (twice-born) are entitled to
*upanayan* and the study of the Vedas. *Shudras *as well as women of *dwija
varnas *are denied the right to study.

2. Assigning different duties and occupations for different *varnas*. This
is to be enforced strictly by the king.
[32]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn32>According
to
*Manusmriti*, if a person of lower caste adopts the occupation of a higher
caste, the king ought to deprive him of all his property and expel him from
his kingdom. [33]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn33>

3. Treating *Brahmins *as superior and other varnas, namely,
*Kshatriya*, *Vaishya
*and *Shudra* as inferior to him in descending order with the *Shudra
*occupying
the bottom of the hierarchy. A *Brahmin* is to be treated as god and
respected even if he is ignorant. Even a hundred-year old *Kshatriya* is to
treat a ten year old *Brahmin *as his father.
[34]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn34>
*Brahmin *alone is entitled to teach. If a Shudra dares to give moral
lessons to a Brahmin, the king is to get him punished by pouring hot oil in
his ear and mouth.
[35]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn35>Similarly,
if a Shudra occupies the same seat as a Brahmin, he is to be
punished by branding his waist (with hot rod) or getting his buttocks cut!
[36] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn36>

4. Treating women as unequal. Women, that is, even women belonging to *
Brahmin*, *Kshatriya* and *Vaishya* *varna* are not entitled to
*upanayan*and the study of the Vedas. For them, marriage is equivalent
to
*upanayan* and service of their husbands is equivalent to the study of the
Vedas in the *gurukul*.[37]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn37>Even
if the husband is morally degraded, engaged in an affair with another
woman and is devoid of knowledge and other qualities, the wife must treat
him like a god.
[38]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn38>A
widower is allowed to remarry but a widow is not.
[39] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn39>Besides,
women are not considered fit for being free and independent. They
are to be protected in their childhood by father, in youth by husband and in
old age by son.
[40]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn40>They
should never be allowed by their guardians to act independently.
[41] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn41> A
woman must never do anything even inside her home without the consent of her
father, husband and son respectively.
[42]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn42>She
must remain in control of her father in childhood, of husband in youth
and of son after the death of her husband.
[43]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn43>

5. Treating different *varnas* as unequal for legal purposes. The Hindu law
as codified by Manu is based on the principle of inequality. The punishment
for a particular crime is not same for all *varnas*. In fact, the punishment
varies depending on the *varna* of the victim as well as the *varna *of the
person committing the crime. For the same crime, the *Brahmin *is to be
given a mild punishment, whereas the *Shudra *is to given the harshest
punishment of all. Similarly, if the victim of a crime is a *Shudra*, the
punishment is mild, and the punishment is harsh in case the victim is a *
Brahmin*. For example, if a *Brahmin* is awarded death sentence, it is
sufficient to shave his head, but *Kshatriya*, Vaishya and *Shudra* are to
actually die. [44]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn44>If
a
*Kshatriya*, a Vaishya, or a *Shudra* repeatedly gives false evidence in the
court, he is to be punished and expelled from the kingdom, whereas the *
Brahmin* is not to be punished, he is to be only expelled.
[45]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn45>If
a person has sexual intercourse with a consenting women of his own
*varna*, he is not to be punished.
[46]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn46>But
if a person of lower
*varna* has sexual intercourse with a woman of higher *varna*, with or
without her consent, he is to be killed.
[47]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn47>If
a
*Brahmin* forces a *dwija* to work for him, he is to be punished.
[48]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn48>But
if a
*Brahmin* forces a *Shudra* to work for him, whether by making or not making
payments to him, he is not to be punished, because *Shudras* have been
created only for serving
*Brahmins*.[49]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn49>If
a
*Brahmin *abuses a *Shudra*, he is to be fined mildly,
[50]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn50>but
if a
*Shudra* abuses a *Brahmin*, he is to be killed.
[51]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn51>On
the other hand, even if a
*Brahmin* kills a *Shudra*, he is merely to perform penance by killing a
cat, frog, owl or crow, etc.
[52]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn52>Thus
a
*Shudra* is to be killed for abusing a *Brahmin*, whereas a *Brahmin* is to
be let off lightly even if he kills a *Shudra*. Such is the unequal justice
of *Manusmriti.*

In fact, this system of graded inequality seems to be the very essence of
the *varna-vyavastha*. Whether it is the choice of names,
[53]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn53>or
the manner of greeting,
[54] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn54> or
the mode of entertaining guests,
[55]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn55>or
the method of administering oath in the court,
[56] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn56> or
the process of taking out the funeral procession,
[57]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn57>at
each and every step in life, from birth to death, this system of
graded
inequality is to be applied and observed. Manu does not even spare the rates
of interest on loan. For borrowing the same amount, *Kshatriya* has to pay
more as interest than *Brahmin*, *Vaishya *more than *Kshatriya *and the
poor *Shudra* has to pay the maximum amount as interest!
[58]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn58>

6. Prohibiting inter-marriage between different *varnas*. According to *
Manusmriti*, a *dwija* ought to marry a woman of his own
*varna*.[59]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn59>A
woman of the same
*varna* is considered best for the first marriage. However, a *dwija* may
take a woman of inferior *varna* as his second wife if he is overcome by
sexual passion.
[60]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn60>
 But Manu strongly disapproves of
*Brahmins* and *Kshatriyas* taking a *Shudra *woman even as their second
wife. They become *Shudra* if they do so.
[61]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn61>


7. Supporting untouchability is also a part of the scheme of social
stratification outlined in the *Manusmriti*. Manu clearly mentions that *
Brahmin*, *Kshatriya* and *Vaishya*, collectively known as *dwija* and the *
Shudras* are the four *varnas*. There is no fifth
*varna*.[62]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn62>He
explains the origin of other castes by saying that they are
*varna-sankara* castes, that is to say, castes originating due to the
intermixture of different *varnas*, both in *anuloma* (upper *varna *male
and lower *varna* female) and *pratiloma *(lower *varna *male and upper *varna
*female) manner.
[63]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn63>For
example,
*Nishad *caste is said to have originated from *anuloma* relationship
between *Brahmin* male and *Shudra
*female,[64]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn64>whereas
C
*handala* caste is said to be owing its origin to *pratiloma* relationship
between *Shudra* male and *Brahmin* female.
[65]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn65>

Manu seems to be disapproving of *pratiloma *relationship more than the *
anuloma*, because he describes C*handalas* as the lowest of the low castes.
[66] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn66>

Let us see what *Manusmriti*, has to say about the C *handala*. The *
Chandala*, says *Manusmriti*, must not ever reside inside the village. While
doing their work, they must reside outside the village, at cremation ground,
on mountains or in groves. They are not entitled to keep cows or horses,
etc., as pet animals. They may keep dogs and donkeys. They are to wear
shrouds. They are to eat in broken utensils. They are to use ornaments of
iron, not of gold. They must keep moving from one place to another, not
residing at the same place for a long duration.
[67]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn67>They
must not move around in villages and cities in night hours. They may
enter the villages and cities in daytime, with king's permission, wearing
special symbols (to enable identification), and take away unclaimed dead
bodies. [68]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn68>

Moreover, how is the "religious" person to deal with the *Chandala*? He must
not have any social intercourse (marriage, interdining, etc.) with them. He
must not talk to or even see them!
[69]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn69>He
may ask servants (apparently
*Shudras*) to give them food in broken utensils.
[70]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn70>

8. Granting divine and religious sanction to *varna-vyavastha*. Manu gives
divine and religious sanction to the *varna-vyavastha* by claiming divine
origin for the *varnas* as well as for the *Manusmriti *and demanding
unquestioning obedience of it.

So, that completes my exposition of the *varna-vyavastha*. I want to
emphasize in particular that my exposition does not contain any exaggeration
at all. The reader may check each and every statement by comparing with the
original *Manusmriti* in order to satisfy himself or herself. I cannot help
if the system is so unjust and so out of tune with out existing values that
even an objective exposition reads like a severe condemnation. Nevertheless,
I will now turn to my reasons for rejecting *varna-vyavastha*: I reject *
varna-vyavastha* because it is irrational, unjust and undemocratic, being
opposed to the democratic and human values of liberty, equality and
fraternity.
Criticism of varna-vyavastha

The *varna-vyavastha* is opposed to the value of liberty as it denies the
freedom to choose one's occupation and marriage partner to one and all.
Everyone must join the occupation of his *varna* and must marry within his *
varna*. Similarly, it denies the freedom to study to the *Shudras* and woman
in particular. Even the *dwija *must study the Vedas before he studies
anything else. Otherwise, he becomes a
*Shudra.*[71]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn71>(Incidentally,
according to
*Manusmriti*, there are several ways by which a *Brahmin* or *dwija* may
become a *Shudra* but there is no way by which a *Shudra* may become a *
Brahmin*. A *Shudra *must always remain a
*Shudra.*)[72]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn72>

What is worse, the *Chandala *is even denied the freedom to reside at a
place of his choice or to wear clothes and ornaments of his choice. He is
not even free to keep pet animals of his choice.

The conflict between *varna-vyavastha* and the value of equality is more
than obvious. As I mentioned earlier, the system of graded inequality seems
to be the very essence of *varna-vyavastha*. It denies equal respect to all
in society. It denies equality before law. It denies equal access to
marriage partners. It denies equal access to jobs. The occupation of
teachers and priests, for example, is reserved exclusively for *Brahmins*.
Finally, it also denies equal access to education and knowledge.

A *Brahmin*, according to Manu, must not teach the *Shudra* and woman even
if he dies with his knowledge without imparting it to anybody.
[73]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn73>On
the other hand, if anyone studies the Vedas on his own he or she will
go
straight to hell.
[74]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn74>In
other words, cent percent reservations for
*dwija *males in the sphere of education.

The *varna-vyavastha* is most unfair to the *Shudras *and the untouchables.
They are denied respect, knowledge, power and wealth. They are denied access
to occupations considered respectable, just as they are denied access to men
and women of upper *varnas *for marriage. The *Shudras* are virtually
reduced to being slaves of the *Brahmins* in particular and the *dwijas* in
general, whereas the untouchables are regarded as outcast -- beyond the pale
of the society. The women are generally treated as sexual objects and as
unfit for being independent and free.

As far as fraternity is considered, we must not expect it to exist in a
society, which is so unequal and unjust. A *Shudra's* waist is to be branded
or his buttocks are to be cut only because he occupies the same seat as the
*Brahmin*. The "religious" are not to talk or even look at a *Chandala*.
Inter-marriage is prohibited. Manu seems to be most eager to prevent
inter-mixing of the *varnas.* Thus, the Hindu social order is based on the
isolation and exclusiveness of the *varnas*.

The *Manusmriti* not only outlines a totally undemocratic and unjust social
system but also gives divine, religious sanction to this man-made social
institution of *chaturvarnya*. Some Hindus, including apparently learned
"thinkers" and writers, smugly wax eloquent about Hinduism being the most
tolerant and liberal religion of the world.

Is there any other religion, which sanctions slavery and untouchability? Is
there any other religion in which only persons born in a particular caste (
*Brahmin*) are entitled to become priests?

Slavery is not peculiar to India or to Hinduism, but carrying it to the
extremes of untouchability, and granting it divine and religious sanction is
peculiar to Hinduism.

Similarly, some Hindus may be tolerant, just as some of them are intolerant,
but Hinduism or Hindu religion is not tolerant at all, either socially or
intellectually. *Manusmriti*, for example, clearly says that anybody who
argues critically and logically about *dharmashastras* ought to be
ostracized. [75]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn75>Non-believers,
including freethinkers, rationalists and Buddhists, are not
to be entertained respectfully as guests; though, mercifully, they may be
given food. [76]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn76>The
families of non-believers are destroyed sooner than later according to
Manu. [77]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn77>A
state with a large number of
*Shudra*s and *nastikas* soon meets its destruction.
[78]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn78>
*Manusmriti* is full of abusive epithets for freethinkers and non-believers.
The unorthodox ( *nastikas*) are sometimes equated with the *Shudras*,
sometimes with the *Chandalas*, sometimes with thieves and sometimes with
lunatics! [79]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn79>Such
is the generosity of Hindu
*dharma*.
Apologies for varna-vyavastha

Let me now consider what the apologists of *varna-vyavastha* have to say in
its defense.

A standard defense of *varna-vyavastha* is to say that it is a system of
division of labor. It is easy to grant that division of labor is essential
for any complex society, but it is equally easy to see that *varna-vyavastha
* is not a system of division of labor based on aptitude and capability. It
is a system of division of labor *based on birth *. Besides, it has other
associated features such as feeling of superiority and inferiority,
inequality before law, denial of equal access to knowledge and prohibition
against inter-marriage.

What have these features to do with the division of labor?

Division of labor is found in all societies, but *varna-vyavastha* is not.
Thus, trying to justify *varna-vyavastha* as division of labor is a futile
exercise.

Another standard defense of the *varna-vyavastha* is to say that the system
was originally based on aptitude and capability. Whether it was actually
ever so is a subject for historical research. Most probably, the racial
theory of the origin of castes is true. However, even if we grant for the
sake of argument that the *varna-vyavastha* was originally based on aptitude
and capability, how does it help? We cannot say that *because* the system
was originally, some time in remote past, based on aptitude and capability;
*therefore* we ought to gladly suffer the present system based on birth. It
hardly makes any sense at all!

In any case, *Manusmriti *was most probably written between200 BC and 200 AD
[80] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn80>and
the system as outlined in it is totally based on birth. Gautam Buddha,
who lived in sixth century BC, challenged the infallibility of the Vedas as
well as the *varna-vyavastha*. There are several passages in *Tripitaka*,
mainly in *Digha Nikaya *and *Majhima Nikaya *which are "directed against
the claims of the Brahmans to be of different origin from the rest of
humanity, born from the mouth of Brahma, having a hereditary prerogative to
teach, guide and spiritually govern the rest of the society."
[81]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn81>In
*Majhima Nikaya *Buddha is quoted as refuting *varna-vyavastha* on several
occasions. According to Buddha, it is unreasonable to decide one's place and
functions in society on the basis of one's birth in a caste. Buddha is also
quoted as insisting that in the eyes of the law all persons ought to be
treated as equal, irrespective of the caste or *varna *in which he or she is
born. [82]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn82>Thus,
it is obvious that even if the system of
*varna-vyavastha* ever existed in its ideal form -- which is doubtful -- it
had already degenerated by the time of Buddha, that is, about 2500 years
back.

The most blatant defense of *varna-vyavastha*, however, is to say that human
beings are born unequal, and, therefore, it is natural and normal for
children to join the occupation of their fathers. Surprisingly and sadly, no
less a person than Gandhi defended *varna-vyavastha* in a similar manner.

To quote Gandhi: "I believe that every man is born in the world with certain
natural tendencies. Every person is born with certain definite limitations
which he cannot overcome. From a careful observation of those limitations
the law of *varna* was deduced. It establishes certain spheres of action for
certain people with certain tendencies. This avoided all unworthy
competition. Whilst recognizing limitations, the law of *varna *admitted of
no distinction of high and low; on the one hand it guaranteed to each the
fruits of his labors and on the other it prevented him from pressing upon
his neighbor. This great law has been degraded and fallen into disrepute.
But my conviction is that an ideal social order will only be evolved when
the implications of this law are fully understood and given effect
to". [83]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn83>

Again, "I regard *Varnashrama* as a healthy division of work based on birth.
The present ideas of caste are a perversion of the original. There is no
question with me of superiority or inferiority. It is purely a question of
duty. I have indeed stated that *varna *is based on birth. But I have also
said that it is possible for a *shudra*, for instance, to become a *vaishya.
* But in order to perform the *duty *of *vaishya* he does not need the label
of a *vaishya.* He who performs the duty of a *brahman* will easily become
one in the next incarnation."
[84]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn84>

So, *varna-vyavastha*, according to Gandhi, is a "healthy division of work
based on birth", which takes into account the "natural tendencies" of human
beings and avoids "unworthy competition."

This apparently plausible defense of *varna-vyavastha* is, in fact, most
unscientific. It is a well-known and scientifically verified fact that
*acquired
*characteristics are not inherited biologically, only genetic qualities are
transmitted from one generation to another. For instance, carpentry is an
acquired characteristic; just as knowledge of philosophy is an acquired
quality. Neither a carpenter's son or daughter is born with the knowledge of
carpentry, nor is a philosopher's daughter or son born with the knowledge of
philosophy. These are acquired characteristics and, therefore, they cannot
be inherited biologically. If sometimes, though not always, a carpenter's
son becomes a good carpenter or a philosopher's daughter acquires a good
knowledge of philosophy, without being formally initiated into these
disciplines, it is *not because they are born with the required knowledge,
but only because of the favorable environment at home, *which enables them
to acquire these characteristics. The result could be different if their
places were to be interchanged.

One may say that though the knowledge of carpentry of philosophy in not
inherited biologically, the mental qualities enabling one to acquire the
requisite knowledge is inherited. Some physical and mental qualities are, no
doubt, inherited but this does not mean that parents and their children are
always identical in physical or mental qualities. It is a well known fact --
anybody can verify this by careful observation -- that due to different
permutations and combinations of chromosomes and genes offspring of same
parents are not always identical to one another or to their parents. More
often than not, they are different. For instance, one son or daughter of
same parents may be tall and another short. The colors of skin, hair and
eyes may differ likewise. What is true of physical characteristics is
equally true of mental qualities. Thus, a child may or may not have the
mental characteristics, which his father has.

Therefore, *it is totally unscientific to forcefully restrict children to
the occupations of their forefathers. *

It is true that all human beings are not equal in the sense of being *identical
*in physical or mental qualities. But it does not follow from this that they
ought to be denied equal opportunity to join a vocation of their choice or
that they ought to be denied equality before law or equal respect as human
beings in the society.

As for "unworthy" competition, how do we know that the competition is
unworthy unless all are, to begin with, given equal opportunity? Take the
example of Gandhi himself. He was a *bania* by caste. Yet, in spite of some
serious aberrations such as supporting *varna-vyavastha* based on birth and
linking politics with religion, he performed fairly well in the role of a
national leader. It would have been a great loss for the nation if in the
name of avoiding "unworthy" competition in politics, Gandhi would have been
confined to running a grocery shop. Similarly, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar was born in
an "untouchable" caste, but he played an important role in the drafting of
the democratic constitution of independent India. He also taught in a
college for some time. To use the terminology of *varna-vyavastha*, he ably
performed the work of a *Brahmin.*

Is it possible to imagine how many Ambedkars we may have lost by now owing
to the restrictive *varna-vyavastha*?

As we have noted earlier, *varna-vyavastha* is a closed system of social
stratification without any scope for upward social mobility. To quote M.
Haralambos, author of a textbook on sociology, "A person belongs to his
parents jati and automatically follows the occupation of the *jati *into
which he was born. Thus no matter what the biologically based aptitude and
capacities of an untouchable, there is no way he can become a Brahmin.
Unless it is assumed that superior genes are permanently located in the
Brahmin caste, and there is no evidence that this is the case, then there is
probably no relationship between genetically based and socially created
inequality in traditional Hindu society."
[85]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn85>

Returning to Gandhi, though Gandhi was opposed to untouchability and caste,
he did not carry his opposition to its logical conclusion. Inconsistently
enough, he continued to support the *varna-vyavastha* based on birth. At one
stage, he even supported restrictions on interdining and intermarriage. As
he wrote in *Young India* in 1921, "Hinduism does most emphatically
discourage interdining and intermarriage between divisions... It is no part
of a Hindu's duty to dine with his son. And by restricting his choice of
bride to a particular group, he exercises rare self-restraint. *Prohibition
against intermarriages and interdining is essential for the rapid evolution
of the soul. *"[86]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn86>(emphasis
mine)

Later Gandhi moved away from these orthodox ideas, and started supporting
intercaste marriages. Finally in 1946, he refused to solemnize any marriage
at Sevagram Ashram unless one of the parties was an untouchable.
[87]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn87>May
be he would also have given up
*varna-vyavastha* if he had lived longer. That, however, is in the realm of
imagination, the fact is that Gandhi supported *varna-vyavastha*. It is
worth noting that he invented his own conception of *varna-vyavastha*,
which, according to him, had nothing to do with the feeling of superiority
and inferiority or with prohibition against intermarriage. We find here in
Gandhi a quaint mixture of conservatism and reformism.

I would like to dispose of one last objection before concluding this
section. One may say that the Hindu law at present is quite different from
what Manu desired, and presently Hindus in general do not follow Manu in
totality. This is true. The Hindu law at present, for instance, allows
inter-caste marriage and prohibits bigamy and child marriage. It permits
divorce. It also allows widow remarriage and grants equal rights to
daughters in father's property. Nevertheless, there seems to be a gap
between the progressive Hindu law and the conservative social practices of
the Hindus. A majority of Hindu marriages are still within the caste and
very few Hindu women actually claim or get a share in father's property.

The Indian constitution has rightly made special provisions, such as
reservations in services for scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other
socially and educationally backward classes, to enable them to enter
occupations and positions of power, which had been traditionally denied to
them. No doubt, some upper caste liberal Hindus, too, support the policy of
reservation. But, by and large, the Hindu upper castes are far from fully
reconciled to this progressive step as is evident from violent and
aggressive anti-reservation agitation spearheaded by upper caste students
from time to time. This kind of reactionary agitation aimed at preserving
the present dominance of upper castes in education and the services enjoys
considerable support and sympathy in the upper caste dominated media as well
as the academia.

On the whole, the Hindu society is yet to fully exorcise the ghost of Manu.
Caste based on birth and untouchability still exist in the Hindu society, in
spite of the fact that untouchability has been abolished by the Indian
constitution. The distribution of education, power and wealth continues to
be uneven in the Hindu society, with the *dwijas *being on the top and the *
Shudras* and untouchables being at the bottom. Teaching is no more an
exclusive preserve of *Brahmins*, but the occupation of Hindu priests is
still fully reserved for *Brahmins*, though this fact does not arouse the
ire of our fervent anti-reservationists.
*Moksha*, *Karmavada* and *Avatarvada*

*Moksha *is traditionally regarded as the highest end of life in Hindu
religion. The "endless cycle of birth and death" is considered a bondage
from which one must attain liberation, that is *moksha* or *mukti*.

This whole concept of bondage and liberation is based on the unproved
assumption of life after death, and the existence of soul ( *atma*) which
continues to exist apart from the body even after death. In the famous words
of *Gita*, the soul changes bodies just as human beings change
clothes. [88]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn88>

Now, there are no good reasons for believing in the existence of soul or
life after death or rebirth. These beliefs are not at all supported by
incontrovertible scientific evidence. According to S.N. Dasgupta, "there has
seldom been before or after Buddha any serious attempt to prove or disprove
the doctrine of rebirth. The attempts to prove the doctrine of rebirth in
the Hindu philosophical works such as Nyaya, etc. are slight and
inadequate." [89]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn89>

However, even before Buddha, Lokayat had disproved the existence of soul,
life after death, rebirth, heaven and hell on an empirical basis, as these
things are never perceived.
[90]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn90>

Thus, in absence of any evidence to the contrary, it is reasonable to
believe that *each one of us has got one and only one life *. Once a person
is dead, he is dead for ever. Never to be reborn. *Mind, consciousness,
memory and life cannot outlast the destruction of brain and body. *This is
the harsh truth; howsoever we may dislike it.

The belief in soul seems to have originated from primitive animism.
[91]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn91>If
this belief continues to persist, in spite of total lack of evidence
in
its support, it is only because of human beings' inability to come to terms
with, or to squarely face, the reality of death. One likes to believe that
one's near and dear ones, who are dead and finished forever, actually
continue to live in some other imaginary world, and that they will also be
reborn one day. One draws comfort from the thought that one will not die
even after death, and continue to live in some other form. It is paradoxical
that, first, the fear of death and love of life makes one readily accept the
belief in the immortality and rebirth of soul without adequate evidence,
and, then, getting rid of this alleged cycle of birth and death itself
becomes the topmost religious aim!
[92]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn92>

The problem of getting "released" from the alleged cycle of birth and death
is a pseudo-problem (in the sense that one is trying to get rid of something
which simply does not exist) and *moksha* is an imaginary ideal which has
nothing to do with the reality. Instead of running after the imaginary ideal
of *moksha*, it is far better to concentrate on improving and living well
this one and only life, which we have.

Mimamsa, which is an orthodox Hindu school of thought, considers attainment
of heaven ( *swarga*), instead of *moksha*, as the highest end of life.
References to heaven and hell are also to be found in the *Manusmriti*. The
belief in heaven is fairly widespread at popular level. However, the ideal
of the attainment of heaven, too, is based on unproved assumptions, like
life after death and the existence of heaven, and, therefore, it cannot be
accepted.

Another related doctrine is the Hindu belief in *karmavada* or the so-called
law of *karma*. According to this doctrine, every human being gets the
fruits of his actions either in the present or in some future life. Whatever
a human being is in his present life is the result of his own actions in the
past life or lives.

This, again, is a totally unverified and unverifiable doctrine based on the
assumption of the "cycle of birth and death". It is only a convenient tool
for explaining away the perceived inequality in human society. The idea of *
karma* is found in Buddhism and Jainism as well. However, these religions do
not support *varna-vyavastha*. But in Hinduism the doctrine of *karma*,
along with the idea of god, has been used for providing ideological support
to the unjust *varna-vyavastha* and for making it appear just and fair. In
Hinduism the so-called law of *karma *merely serves the purpose of
legitimizing the unjust *varna-vyavastha* by making the *Shudras* and the
"untouchables" meekly accept their degrading position as a "result of their
own deeds" in imaginary past lives, and by assuring them "better" birth in
"next life" if they faithfully perform their *varna-dharma* in their present
lives. [93]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn93>In
this way, this doctrine prevents them from revolting against this
man-made undemocratic system, which has nothing to do with alleged past and
future lives.

Lastly, I come to the Hindu doctrine of *avatarvada*. According to this
doctrine, whenever religion is threatened in this world, god takes birth as
an *avatar *to put things back into order. Ram and Krishna, for example, are
popularly regarded as *avatars* by the Hindus.

Belief in *avatarvada*, too, is logically unjustifiable and merely makes one
run away from one's own responsibilities. Instead of making efforts to
improve their own condition, those who believe in *avatarvada* keep waiting
for an *avatar* to take birth. Since god does not exist, there is no
question of his being born on this earth as an *avatar*. (Let me add here
that I also do not believe in the truth of statements like "Jesus is the son
of god" or "Mohammed is the messenger of god".)

Not only I do not regard Ram or Krishna (or anyone else) as an *avatar *of
god, I also do not regard them as ideal personalities. Ram, as mentioned
earlier, was on upholder, of the *varna-vyavastha*. His cruel behavior with
Sita, after fighting a destructive war with Ravana to get her released, is
too well known to need recapitulation.
[94]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn94>

Krishna, on the other hand, is portrayed in the *Mahabharata *as the teacher
of *Bhagvat Gita *, a book which expounds untrue and harmful doctrines like
the belief in god and immortal soul, *avatarvada*, *karmavada*, *varnashram
dharma *and the doctrine of *moksha.*

In *Mahabharata* Krishna adopts and advocates adoption of unfair means like
lying and deception for achieving one's ends. Obviously, he did not believe
in the doctrine of purity of ends and means. There are several flaws in the
character of Krishna as portrayed in the *Mahabharata*, *Bhagvat* and *
Harivamsa*. These have been ably enumerated by Dr. Ambedkar in his *The
Riddle of Ram and Krishna *. I refer the interested reader to this work for
a fuller treatment of this subject.
[95]<http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fn95>
Conclusion

To conclude, I categorically reject major Hindu religious beliefs including
the doctrine of the infallibility of the Vedas, *varnashram dharma *, *
moksha*, *karmavada*, and *avatarvada*. I am not an admirer of Ram and
Krishna, and I also do not believe in idol worship or the Hindu taboo of not
eating beef. I support logical and scientific thinking; and a secular,
rational morality based on human values of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Therefore, I am not a Hindu by conviction, though I am a Hindu by birth.
 ------------------------------
 Endnotes

[1] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB1> S.
Radhakrishnan, *The Hindu View of Life *(Bombay: Blackie & Son (India) Ltd.,
1979), p. 12.

[2] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB2>Ibid.,
p. 14.

[3] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB3>Ibid.,
pp. 16-17.

[4] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB4>
M.K.Gandhi, "Aspects of Hinduism" in *Hindu Dharma *(New Delhi: Orient
Paperbacks, 1978), p. 9.

[5] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB5>Ninian
Smart, "Hinduism" in
*The Encyclopedia of Philosophy *(ed. in chief, Paul Edwards) Vol. IV (New
York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc. & The Free Press, 1972), p.1.

[6] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB6>
S.N.Dasgupta *, A History of Indian Philosophy *, Vol. 1 (Delhi: Motilal
Banarsidass, 1975), pp. 67-68.

[7] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB7>Chatterjee
and Datta,
*An Introduction to Indian Philosophy *.

[8] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB8>Ibid.

[9] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB9>Ibid.

[10] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB10>
S.N.Dasgupta, Op. Cit., p. 394.

[11] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB11> I
have discussed the question of the existence of god in my small Hindi book *Kya
Ishwar Mar Chuka Hai? *(Patna: Bihar Buddhiwadi Samaj, 1985, 1995). See, *Is
God Dead? *(An introduction to *Kya ishwar mar chuka hai? *) [Patna:
Buddhiwadi Foundation, 1998]

[12] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB12>
M.K.Gandhi, "Aspects of Hinduism" in *Hindu Dharma *, pp. 9-10.

[13] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB13>
A.L.B., "History of Hinduism" in *The New Encyclopaedia Britannica *, Vol. 8
(Chicago: Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc., 1981), pp. 910-11.

[14] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB14>
B.R. Ambedkar *, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches, *Vol.
4, *Riddles
in Hinduism *(Bombay: Education Department, Government of Maharashtra,
1987), p. 332.

[15] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB15>
Y.Masih, *The Hindu Religious Thought *(Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1983),
pp. 192-93.

[16] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB16>Bhagvad-Gita
I: 40,41, 42,43.

[17] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB17>
B.G. IV: 13.15.

[18] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB18>
Y.Masih, Op.Cit., p.208, Also see, pp. 224-25.

[19] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB19>
V.P.Verma, *Modern Indian Political Thought *(Agra: Lakshmi Narain Agarwal,
1991), pp. 50-51.

[20] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB20>Manusmriti
(MS) I: 31.

[21] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB21>MS
I:58.

[22] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB22>MS
I:88.

[23] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB23>MS
I:89.

[24] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB24>MS
I: 90.

[25] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB25>MS
I: 91.

[26] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB26>MS
I: 93, Also see, X: 3.

[27] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB27>MS
I: 95.

[28] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB28>MS
I: 101.

[29] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB29>MS
I: 103.

[30] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB30>MS
II: 10,13.

[31] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB31>MS
II: 11.

[32] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB32>MS
VIII: 410.

[33] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB33>MS
X: 96. Also see, Kautilya,
*Arthshastra* I: 3, Quoted by J.N. Farquhar in *An Outline of the Religious
Literature of India ( *Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 1984), p. 44.

[34] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB34>MS
II: 135.

[35] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB35>MS
VIII: 272.

[36] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB36>MS
VIII: 281.

[37] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB37>MS
II: 67.

[38] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB38>MS
V: 154.

[39] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB39>MS
V: 168,157.

[40] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB40>MS
IX: 3.

[41] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB41>MS
IX: 2.

[42] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB42>MS
V: 147.

[43] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB43>MS
V: 148.

[44] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB44>MS
VIII: 379.

[45] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB45>MS
VIII: 123.

[46] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB46>MS
VIII: 364.

[47] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB47>MS
VIII: 366.

[48] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB48>MS
VIII: 412.

[49] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB49>MS
VIII: 413.

[50] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB50>MS
VIII: 268.

[51] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB51>MS
VIII: 267.

[52] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB52>MS
XI: 131.

[53] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB53>MS
II: 31,32.

[54] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB54>MS
II: 127.

[55] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB55>MS
III: 111,112.

[56] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB56>MS
VIII: 88.

[57] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB57>MS
V: 92.

[58] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB58>MS
VIII: 142.

[59] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB59>MS
III: 4.

[60] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB60>MS
III: 12.

[61] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB61>MS
III: 14,15,16,17,18,19.

[62] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB62>MS
X: 4.

[63] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB63>MS
X: 25.

[64] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB64>MS
X: 8.

[65] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB65>MS
X: 12.

[66] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB66>Ibid.

[67] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB67>MS
X: 50,51,52.

[68] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB68>MS
X: 54,55.

[69] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB69>MS
X: 53.

[70] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB70>MS
X: 54.

[71] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB71>MS
II: 168.

[72] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB72>MS
VIII: 414.

[73] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB73>MS
II: 113; X: 1.

[74] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB74>MS
II: 116.

[75] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB75>MS
II: 11.

[76] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB76>MS
IV: 30.

[77] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB77>MS
III: 65.

[78] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB78>MS
VIII: 22.

[79] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB79>MS
III:150, 161; IX: 225. From a humanist point of view, there is nothing
wrong in being born as a *Shudra* or a *Chandala*, but in the context of the
Manusmriti, these are abusive epithets.

[80] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB80>Manusmriti
(Varanasi: Chaukhambha Sanskrit Sansthan, 1982), pp. 10-11.

[81] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB81>
A.K.Warder*, Indian Buddhism (Delhi: *Motilal Banarsidass, 1980),p.163.

[82] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB82>
Y.Masih, The Hindu Religious Thought, pp. 336-37.

[83] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB83>Nirmal
Kumar Bose,
*Selections from Gandhi ( *Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1972), p.
265.

[84] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB84>Ibid.,
p. 263.

[85] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB85>
M.Haralambos, *Sociology Themes and Perspectives *(Delhi: Oxford University
Press, 1980) pp. 27-28.

[86] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB86>
N.K.Bose, Op.Cit., p. 266.

[87] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB87>Louis
Fischer, Gandhi (New York: New American Library, 1954), pp. 111-12,
Also see, N.K.Bose, Op.Cit., p. 267.

[88] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB88>
B.G. II: 20-25.

[89] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB89>
S.N. Dasgutpa, *A History of Indian Philosophy *, Vol. I, p. 87.

[90] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB90>Chatterjee
and Datta.
*An Introduction to Indian Philosophy *.

[91] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB91>See
M.N.Roy, "The Transmigration of Soul" in *India's Message ( *Delhi: Ajanta
Publications, 1982), pp. 4-6.

[92] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB92>Probably
"the cycle of life and death" is considered "bondage" because it
will presumably lead to death again and again. So, primarily the doctrine of
liberation seems to be a reaction against death.

[93] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB93>"Those
whose conduct has been pleasing will quickly attain a pleasing birth,
the birth of a Brahman or a Kshatriya, or a Vaisya; but those whose conduct
has been abominable, will quickly attain abominable birth, the birth of a
dog, or a hog, or an Outcaste." Brihadaranyaka, quoted by J.N. Farquhar, *An
Outline of the Religious Literature of India *, p. 34, Also see,
S.N.Dasgupta, Op. Cit., p. 363.

[94] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB94>See,
my "Why I do not want Ramrajya" in
*Why I am Not a Hindu & Why I do not want Ramrajya *(Patna: Bihar
Rationalist Society, 1995).

[95] <http://www.mukto-mona.com/Articles/ramendra/why_not_hindu.htm#fnB95>
B.R. Ambedkar, *Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Writings and Speeches *, Vol.
4, *Riddles
in Hinduism. *
 ------------------------------

*Responses:*

Dear Moderator, The fundamental and serious mistake done by the writer of
this article is Understanding of scriptures in Illogical way. I can prove it
here. ...writes Ashok Kumawat..... (read
more<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/23560>
...)

* ***

*Replies***

*Subject***

*Author***

*Date***



23575

Re: Why I Am Not a Hindu by Ramendra Nath
[Republished]<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/23575>

Avijit Roy
charbak_bd <http://profiles.yahoo.com/charbak_bd>


Mar 31, 2005
7:30 pm





23587

Re: Why I Am Not a Hindu by Ramendra Nath
[Republished]<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/23587>

Dr Biplab Pal
biplabpal2000 <http://profiles.yahoo.com/biplabpal2000>


Mar 31, 2005
10:42 pm





23586

Re: Why I Am Not a Hindu by Ramendra Nath
[Republished]<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mukto-mona/message/23586>

mehul kamdar
mehulkamdar <http://profiles.yahoo.com/mehulkamdar>


Mar 31, 2005
10:30 pm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.assamnet.org/pipermail/assam-assamnet.org/attachments/20070813/42c3b4a5/attachment.htm>