Voting with one’s feet: to express one’s dissatisfaction with something by leaving, especially by walking away.
More than 1 lakh Dalits and tribal Hindus converted to Buddhism in May 2007 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of B.R. Ambedkar’s conversion, in what is considered the largest mass conversion in the country
What business is it of any government if I want to convert from one religion to another? Why should I seek permission from, or inform the government that I intend to follow a different god or gods from the one/s I was taught to worship from birth? There is absolutely no justifiable basis for the various anti-conversion laws in India, every one of which should be struck down as anti-constitutional.
Recently, Godie Osuri commented on the paradox of anti-conversion legislations being named ‘Freedom of Religion’ Acts when in fact they entail religious unfreedom. And so they do. The Gujarat government has ordered a probe into the mass conversions of Dalits to Buddhism at Dungarpur village in Junagadh district last Sunday (October 12, 2013). Why? Because under the state’s Freedom of Religion Act of 2003, it is mandatory for the organizers to have taken prior permission. Turns out that the organizers did in fact inform the authorities, who provided facilities such as an ambulance, microphone and so on. It is clear that this ‘probe’ is a belated and panic stricken response from the Gujarat government upon realizing how great the Dalit response was to the event.
Mansukh Vaghela, who converted to Buddhism along with his wife and three children, said “By this change, I and my family want to be part of a different society”.
He, like thousands of others, are basically voting with their feet. They want no longer to be part of a religion in which
Wherever I went, people asked me about my caste and I had to tell them, with a deep sense of humiliation, that I was a Dalit. My children are not allowed to take part in garba during Navratri nor are we allowed to enter temple in my village. Many refuse to give me work when they know I am a Dalit.
Said Aravind Chauhan
There are lots of sub-castes within Dalits and I was fed up with all that. I wanted to breathe the air of freedom by breaking those shackles, hence converted to Buddhism with my entire family.
These are relatively young men, both about 40. This means they were born around 1975, in the last decades of the 20th century. These are not people in their eighties! Caste discrimination and caste oppression are alive and well, in this the second decade of the 21st century, in case anyone was worried about their health.
The Liberal Hindu will at this point make two very reasonable sounding arguments:
One, that it is foolish to think that things would be any better in the new religion. Look how caste flourishes in Islam and Christianity, s/he will say; and as if poverty and general deprivation will be redressed by religious conversion!
Two, s/he will add, even more reasonably, ‘genuine’ religious conversion is fine, but not – most certainly not – conversions brought about by ‘fraud or coercion’.
The Gujarat Act puts it this way – to provide for freedom of religion by prohibition of conversion from one religion to another by the use of force or allurement or by fraudulent means.
What does ‘fraud and coercion’ mean? According to the Act,
“Allurement” means offer of any temptation in the form of: (i) any gift or gratification, either in cash or kind; (ii) grant of any material benefit, either monetary or otherwise;
“Force” includes a show of force or a threat of injury of any kind including a threat of divine displeasure or social excommunication;
“Fraudulent means” includes misrepresentation or any other fraudulent contrivance;
So – on to the first objection – nothing changes with religious conversion, so why do it? Sure, ask that question, especially if you also ask the question about what is it that needs to change in the religion from which the conversions are taking place on a mass scale. Asking the question is one thing, but it is quite another to legally and punitively prohibit people from taking the chance that the grass may be greener. It may work, it may not work, like most decisions taken by most people, including by the Liberal Hindu – but what can possibly be the constitutional justification for a law that prevents you from checking out the other side of the fence?
As for fraud and coercion. Of course, no decision taken under actual physical force or threat of it, can be legitimate. But nobody really believes that conversion ‘by the sword’ is an issue today. Nor could it ever have been seriously practiced in India on a large scale, or else Muslims would not be a mere 12 per cent of the population, and Christians less than 3 percent, after centuries of rule by rulers of those religious persuasions. (Goa is another story, and those debates rage fiercely elsewhere in Kafila). [1]
No, fraud and coercion refer to ‘material benefit, either monetary or otherwise’. ‘Genuine’ religious conversion implicitly, is acceptable – which is understood to involve the spiritual transformation of an individual, on the basis of ‘knowledge’, both of the person’s ‘own’ religion as well as of the one to which she converts. Informed choice, in other words. Interesting argument, considering one’s original religion is hardly the best illustration of ‘choice- you’re simply born into it, after all.
But still, somehow, ‘one’s own religion’, despite its being purely an accident of birth, is to be adhered to at all costs. Dalits or tribals who convert to Christianity, Buddhism or Islam in the hope of, and attracted by, economic benefits – jobs, schools, health facilities; and social benefits – dignity, self-respect – are in this view, instances of fraudulent conversion. Pandita Ramabai and Babasaheb Ambedkar may be conceded as genuine, not by the Hindu Right, for whom they are traitors, but perhaps by the Liberal Hindu, who will nevertheless, not refrain from condescendingly pointing out that hierarchies of caste and gender continue to operate in all these religions as well, so the move is at best, misguided.
The unquestioned foundation of this reasonable sounding argument is the assumption that converting from one religion to another is essentially wrong, an act requiring justification. But why? Why is religious conversion essentially different, in a democracy, from other kinds of conversion? When rival companies bid for candidates offering higher salaries and better perks, inducing them to convert from one employer to another, why is that not fraudulent? When political parties attempt to convert voters by wild promises, when Naxalites are wooed back into mainstream society by the State, when political ideologies – of the market or of Marxists, of feminists or of the Hindu Right – attempt to convert with promises of redemption and threats of various kinds, both material and spiritual – why are all these not fraudulent?
And if by conversion we mean a total change of identity, I might point out that this is what a perfectly ordinary marriage involves for most women – change of name, in many communities even the first name, place of residence, way of life, and in general, a complete restructuring of their sense of self. In other words, conversions of different sorts are everyday experiences of modern life – some of these conversions bring benefits, others do not. Sometimes one actively chooses the conversion and takes one’s chances, in other cases, the conversion is thrust upon one through the force of social conformity.
My point is – why should religion should occupy a special place from all of the above, in a modern democracy? Not that I don’t know what the answer will be – religion is a matter of the spirit and not of crass materiality, it should be governed by different standards. In that case, why expect the state to intervene at all in this sacred realm? After all, even from the gods of their ancestors, people expect material benefits. What is the worship of Lakshmi all about, and students’ earnest prayers during examinations? Why not ask the state to enact laws against the performance of pujas and religious ceremonies in general for material benefit?
A puja hoping for better profits in business is “religion” – but converting to another religion hoping your children can go to school is “economics”?
For the democratically-minded who buy the argument against ‘fraudulent’ conversions from what I consider to be mistaken premises, here’s another thought. It is fundamentally anti-democratic to force people to retain any identity against their will, and especially one assumed by the very act of being born. Nationality, caste, religion or even sex. The possibility of change is central to democracy. We have no option but to respect a decision to change any identity for a perceived better future – whatever our opinion may be about whether that change will bring about the desired result.
Of course, the real reason for the Hindu Right’s obsession with religious conversion has nothing to do with protecting the sanctity of religion. The creation of a birth-based political majority is crucial for the project of Hindutva and for its definition of Indian-ness. If ‘others’ turn into the majority, the easy coinciding of Hindutva and the Nation falls apart. The two do not in fact coincide routinely, or else the BJP would have got every single Hindu vote. When Ambedkar decided to leave the Hindu fold along with large numbers of Dalits, who felt the most threatened? Not the orthodox Hindus, who thought it was good riddance. It was Savarkar and the modernist Hindutvavadis who reacted most sharply, understanding fully the importance of numbers for a modern politics of Hindutva. Hence their ever-increasing horror stories about galloping Muslim and Christian populations.
Set aside for the moment, that the possibility of the latter becoming a majority in India is not even remotely possible, my question is this – so what if Hindus become a minority one hundred years from now, or a decade from now, or a year from now? Surely the point is to ensure democratic institutions such that it will make no difference how large your community of birth is, because these institutions ensure that minority status is not a disadvantage?
The politics of Hindutva has actually successfully managed to make an 85 percent-strong majority community feel insecure about the strength of its durable traditions, unsure of the ability of these traditions to survive.
Congratulations. Even a thousand years of ‘Muslim rule’ couldn’t achieve this.
This post draws on my earlier writing on conversions in The Telegraph (Kolkata) and on Kafila.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
1. See Common sense and Hindu nationalism – Why the Catholics in Goa are not Hindu
Europeans of An Other Colour – Why the Goans are Portuguese
Indians of Another Colour, Or why Goans are More than Just Portuguese
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
Reblogged this on polmess and commented:
Resistance and conversion
LikeLike
Brilliant analysis. In my opinion, the state shouldn’t even look at a person’s religion, let alone prevent conversions to another. Freedom of choice and it’s a free market! Let the gods vie for devotees!
LikeLike
The author has hit the nail right on the head. Why should it even be scary that Hindus become a minority 1000 centuries from now. Unless the same demographic scaremongers promote suppression of minority rights in the Democratic space!
LikeLike
The problem with conversion is the arrogance of those who think they have a right to convert others and particularly so when they refer to UN declarations as a support. Claiming the right to seek out the other for conversion is nothing else but turning the other into an object for my design. It is meeting the other as an object, not interested in the encounter and where it might take us.
There will always be people who, for various reasons, will want to break out and look for other pastures. One cannot erect walls high enough to prevent them from leaving. The wall isn’t built that will hinder their flight. It is better to let them leave without clipping their wings. We live in a world where encounters and dialogues will lead some to seek other ways than the ones just travelled. This is the right that UN declarations talk about and this is the right of and in each of our religious traditions – Hans Ucko, a Swedish theologian who heads the WCC’s program for inter-religious dialogue
LikeLike
Absorb what’s good and valuable in another religion. Don’t convert and turn your back totally your previous religion. That’s the way to go. Look at Julia Roberts, she ‘converted’ to Hinduism, and yet hasn’t denounced her old religion, nor advocated than anyone also adopt Hinduism. Three cheers!
LikeLike
Hindu religion did not give any things to dalits,dalits are being forced to carry hindu shits for 3000 years .Hindu religion does not have one person whom dalits can say he is worth to worships eg rama who had killed dalits shabhukha and Atal Bihari vajpayee had justified dalits killing then come to krishna who was morally corrupt then come pandav and karav who were illigimate children of on rishi.mr Patel you should be thankful for dalits who are not taking swords to take revenge from hindus and there hindu led government.for 120 million dalits hinduism is shits and it is better to leave hinduism early as possible.
LikeLike
Religion should have remained a strictly personal affair and whatever your faith it should not create an ‘identity’ issue for the individual outside the home. Now, with the political decisions totally enmeshed with religion, minority representation, discriminatory practices, and government benefits, putting the genii back will be next to impossible. In such a situation Buddhist votes will also come with a price.
LikeLike
120 million dalits are born Buddhist who made slaves by dwarf Adishankracharya.
LikeLike
Actually Sangh Parivar thinkers are okay about converting to Buddhism as Buddhism is considered as a Dharmic religion similar to hinduism, jainism and sikhism. Around 80% of Buddhas disciples were brahmins as per the pali suttas and Buddha himself had ambivalent views on Brahmins and has praised and rebuked brahmins on several occassions. Buddhist cosmology is not much different from Vedic brahminism except for few key ontological differences.
LikeLike
Lyricist Javed Akhtar, at a book launch of Satyapal Singh’s Urdu translation of his novel “Talash Insaan Ki”, spoke about the same issue with a different take. He said, “We think religion can change a man. Well, it hasn’t happened yet. Take a map of the world and mark the places where there is most amount of corruption, brutality, injustice. Now take another map and mark the places where religion is practiced most. The marks will end up being the same.” He also said that religion has nothing to do with morality and a man can change only through his conscious. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/temples-and-the-redundancy-of-it-all—javed-akhtar-on-religion/1/316515.html
LikeLike
Vajradhara, you couldn’t be more wrong when you say “Sangh Parivar thinkers are okay about converting to Buddhism”. Why do you think the Gujarat government is conducting a “probe” into this latest mass conversion to Buddhism? Did you even read the post? A probe means there will be assigning of criminal responsibility – somebody will be punished for this. And of course RSS thinkers claim Buddhism and Jainism as “Hindu” – regardless of the fact they themselves don’t consider themselves to be Hindu. it’s the kind of forcible assimilation RSS is all about.
JGN and others who have held forth on religion as personal, religion as fraudulent, it would help your case if you applied these views to Hinduism as well. If the point is that nobody should have religious beliefs because religion is fraudulent, then why should they be trapped into the religion into which they were born by accident? And if it is personal, then why cannot they convert as many times as they want? What is the possible justification for laws restricting the right to convert? The Freedom of Religion laws in India are all unconstitutional and must be struck down.
LikeLike
Very excellant analysis by N Menon The apt comparisions have been made. Her essay on woman’s plight after was simple and outstanding
LikeLike
Many of my generation studied in Christian institutions, we participated in Bible quizzes, at some point some of us may even have thought of converting (our modern young minds drawn to the clean quiet of the chapel ………………….is clean quiet chappel reason enough to convert to a Religion?
LikeLike
Why not? What is enough and not enough to convert will be decided by the person or persons converting. It could simply be love for a person of another religion!
My question is – is being born into a religion enough reason to stay faithful to it?
LikeLike
Dr Ambedkar once said in the context of conversion that “A religion in which the individual has no importance is not acceptable to me”
Hinduism failed utterly in incorporating the importance of every individual that is why there began a conversion in the first place. How can we hope to develop collectively in society when for thousands of years we have encouraged the dominance of one over the other? When various groups were subjugated, their freedom restricted etc. The last line of the article was so nicely put. As India is getting more and more progressive in terms of economy, development etc we seem to be increasingly developing more and more insecurity.
LikeLike
does christianity give importance to individualism? does buddhism give importance to individuals?
LikeLike
@ Nivedita Menon, no. There is no reason to remain faithful to the religion one is born into. I invite you to join the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
LikeLike
Very mature, and certainly a powerful argument against conversion! In Malayalam we say “make faces when argument fails you” – argument has clearly failed you.
LikeLike
Oh dear, tired soul, JGN! At least try to read and understand what the debate is about. It is not about your invitations or anybody else’s. The decision is entirely with the one who wants to convert. You surely understand that we who convert decide ourselves which invitation to accept and which to reject. You can keep your Flying Spaghetti Monster to yourself. And please try to think whether you make any sense at all before you talk! Nobody wants your permission to convert to stay put.
LikeLike
Here’s my question: Why convert, why not simply absorb what is good or worthwhile in the ‘other’ religion? For India as well, there are security and cultural concerns with conversion. India doesn’t want a large population who are alienated from its history or culture, or from the current majority religion. It could lead to another violent separatist movement or partition, the last thing the subcontinent needs!
LikeLike
“Why not simply absorb what is good or worthwhile in the ‘other’ religion?”
You will have to get some hard facts into your head: a) Nobody is asking for your or my advice. People convert because they want to, and for whatever reason they want to, and they don’t give a damn for your sage advice.
b) Dalits are walking out of Hinduism in large numbers because as Dalits they cannot simply “absorb” the promise of equality in Buddhism, Islam and Christianity. However much they may personally believe in equality, as Dalits they are forced to live with the indignity and oppression that upper caste Hindus deal out to them – I have quoted in my post the reasons offered by two men in their 40’s for why they are converting – not allowed to take part in garba during Navratri, not allowed to enter temple in the village, upper castes refuse to give them work, they want to “breathe the air of freedom”.
Here is another set of interviews with Dalits who converted in Gujarat recently:
Became Buddhist for haircut, shave… mental untouchability persists.
In an earlier comment, you applauded of all people Julia Roberts for converting the way you think everybody should convert. Why do you think Hinduism does not proselytize, or try to convert? Because conversion to Hinduism is conversion into a caste. Let’s say a hundred Muslims come to some Hindu organization saying we want to convert to Hinduism as Brahmins? Can you even imagine the response in such a scenario? You should ask yourself why only white people seem to want to convert to Hinduism!
Chander Patel – Dalits are voting with their feet. Hinduism is a deeply hierarchical, oppressive religion. They want no part of it.
And there is no way any anti-conversion legislation stands up to any democratic principle.
But oh yes, you dont really care for the democratic principle. At the end of all the piety in your comment, you expose yourself – “India doesn’t want a large population who are alienated from its history or culture, or from the current majority religion. It could lead to another violent separatist movement or partition, the last thing the subcontinent needs!”
Who are you – really, who the hell are you – to decide what “India” needs, or “the subcontinent” needs? This is exactly what I say in my post is the real argument of the Hindu right against conversion. Nothing to do with belief, choice, the good in all religions etc. It is simply to do with fundamentally anti-democratic Hindu majoritarianism – the argument of sheer numbers, which accounts for RSS style assimilationism as well – Buddhists are Hindu, Jains are Hindu…
The more people vote with their feet, the more the argument of majoritarianism fails.
Have the guts to build democracies all over South Asia that protect and respect minority interests – that’s what India and the subcontinent need!
LikeLike
I should not be asked for identity of my caste and I should not have a suspicious look by others who want to protect their culture. The non-dalits say that god blessed them a good birth to enjoy social dignity and they surely protect their culture. Dalits want to have a good culture by adopting another religion as they are said to have a tainted culture in hinduism
LikeLike
Mr Patel what culture you want ot give dalits ,dalits are being forced to carry hindus cultural shits on there head they have given in name of rama who was so innocent even he thrown his wife out of kingdom even when she was pregnant that time then come to Krishna who was morrally corrupt then come to mhahabharat where pandav and Karav were illigimate children .120 million dalits are not ready to carry any more shits from hindus or there hindu led government even if another partition of India.
LikeLike
Conversion to hinduism with caste identity is inevitable. Well said!
It is a shame to hindu
LikeLike
Nivedita Menon: Does your negative portrayal of Hinduism also include all the movements within Hinduism, such as ISKCON, Shirdi and Satya Sai Baba, Ramakrishna Mission, Arya Samaj, Vedanta Society, Prarthna Samaj. Mata Amritanandamayi and no doubt several others? What is it Christianity or Islam have, that these organisations/movements do not? Answer- nothing! Actually, the added feature of not believing in exclusivity of salvation/revelation, and non-denunciation of non-believers.
Yes, I am nobody to raise the issue of what the subcontinent needs, after all look at the wonderful condition of minorities in the neighbouring Islamic countries. Who raises that issue? Nobody! Or almost nobody.
LikeLike
Chander Patel – the Dalits or anybody else who decides to convert will go where THEY WANT TO GO. If they wanted to go to Amritanandamayi, they would do that. If they want to go to Islam or Buddhism they do that. THEY will decide what Islam or Buddhism have, that these Hindu sects do not. Is this simple point so difficult to understand?
All of you sound like spurned lovers hopelessly pleading with the object of their desire – stay with me, dont leave me, what does s/he have that I dont have, you have no right to go. Except that the object is not of your desire, but of your control; and you’re not pleading, you’re forcibly preventing them from leaving. So – more like the spurned lover who flings acid or shoots the woman who left him.
And by the way, are you aware that the Ramakrishna Mission claims to be non-Hindu? Of course, the Hindutvavaadis reduce this claim to RK Mission wanting control of its educational institutions as minority institutions, but here is the passionate declaration that the Mission made to the Bengal Court: “The religion of Sri Ramakrishna is the religion separate and different from that of the Hindus…Ramakrishnaism has its separate God, separate name, separate church, separate worship, separate community, separate organization and above all, a separate philosophy….An attempt to equate the religion of Ramakrishna with the Hindu religion as professed and practiced will be to defeat the very object of Ramakrishnaism and to deny his gospel.”
Eventually the Supreme Court denied them non-Hindu status, but that’s how they were made to stay inside Hinduism – by legal fiat.
As for “condition of minorities in the neighbouring Islamic countries” – this is the typical parroting of the Hindutvavaadi formula mindlessly. Read my comment’s last line – “Have the guts to build democracies all over South Asia that protect and respect minority interests – that’s what India and the subcontinent need!”
Read the large number of posts on Kafila by a wide range of people, including Pakistanis and Bangladeshis, who raise this very question repeatedly.
There is no point in talking to such as you – all you have is a set of formulas you keep repeating, regardless of all information, facts, and unassailable arguments.
LikeLike
>>>>You surely understand that we who convert decide ourselves which invitation to accept and which to reject>>>> then why Amrit Patil and Nivedita Menon has still not converted? Or you want only others to convert?
LikeLike
I can’t speak for Amrit Patil but let me speak for myself. If I were actually speaking, I would articulate very slowly and clearly so that you can understand my simple point – I dont “want” anyone to do anything. I am supporting the right of people to do what THEY decide to do – if they want to convert, that is their democratic right; if I want to be an atheist or animist because I believe all organized religion is sham, then that’s my prerogative.
It is you people who “want” others to remain within a religious formation they find stifling and oppressive only because it is the religion into which YOU were born! You have no argument at all for why people should not leave, except that YOU dont “want” them to.
Well, deal with it.
LikeLike
No one can argue against freedom of religious practice. However, since the folks converting here seem to be motivated by a desire to escape social discrimination, the question of whether the conversion will help them achieve this goal is important and should not be brushed aside.
Movements against the varn-vyavastha are not new to India. Leave aside Buddha’s ambiguous views of the Vedas and Brahmins, Mahavira completely dismissed the Vedas as poems that have no meaning. But Jains are firmly ensconced in the caste matrix and even the Hindutva movement today. Untouchability is practiced by Buddhists and Shia Muslims in Ladakh. Sikhism in Punjab simply changed one type of inequality into another,
“The social measurement scale in Punjab is not based on the purity/pollution principle of Brahminical orthodoxy. Instead, it is based on the hold of land, martial strength, and allegiance to Sikhism, a comparatively new religion that openly challenged the rituals and dogmatic traditions of Hinduism and Islam. Unlike the system of caste hierarchy in rest of the country, the top down rank grading of Brahmin (priest), Kshatriya (soldier), Vaishya (trader) and Shudra (menial worker) carries no meaning in Punjab. In Punjab, Brahmin is not placed on the top of the caste hierarchy. The Sikh Jats, who otherwise have been Shudra as per the Varna system, considered themselves socially superior to the Brahmins.In fact, in contemporary Punjab Jats have replaced Brahmins in terms of domination.” – Dr. Ronki Ram
It is doubtful whether the attitude of the people who did not let the interviewees attend Garba will change after they change their religion. It is the discriminator here that needs to be changed, not the ones discriminated against. This is perhaps a limitation of the Ambedkarian view of caste relations.
Another thing, although the RSS/BJP are upper caste dominated (like all ‘national’ parties are) and do have a majoritarian cultural environment as their goal (which should be resisted of course), their views on caste might be more ‘egalitarian’. How many OBC chief ministers and prime ministerial candidates have the Left parties or the Congress produced ?
LikeLike
Vikram : You seem to have eaten the pie too. Or you know that you’ve eaten it already, but you’re trying masquerade it as a doughnut. You say that the discriminator has to be changed, but not the ones discriminated against. Very valid point, but where does the discriminator gather his strength and uppity from ? Hindu religion. So, how can the dalit stay in the hindu cage and expect the discriminator to change, when all the conditions are in favor of the discriminator.
And it is for the people who want to convert to a different religion (Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, jainism, any religion for that matter) to find out for themselves whether they can break free from the discrimination that has been shoved down their throats since the beginning. You and I have no say in their decision, and by extension, the state (government). That’s what the author is trying to get at. Also, what you say is good for me, may not necessarily be good for me. Even if it is, I have every right to not choose that option, it is my prerogative.
And I don’t see how you can assume your extreme right Hindutvawadis to be egalitarian. They are professing and trying to shove down everyones throat a religion that’s sole aim is subjugate and kill any sort of individualism, by condoning killing, ostracization etc.. Read the laws of manu. In the way the caste scenario has unfolded in India over the past decade or two, you can see that the OBCs have become more violent and are more interested in demonstrating their social dominance over dalits via caste. The moment the shudra refuses to be a shudra, OBCs are first to experience the sting. Hence, their yearning and motivation to show their strength, socially, politically and otherwise.
LikeLike
Avinash, first let me make this clear. I am in no way making any comment on people’s right to convert to a religion of their choice. This is a non-negotiable human and fundamental right, and nowhere in my comment have I challenged this.
Your claim is that those who are discriminated against, can find their strength to challenge the discriminators *only* if they convert to a different religion. The examples I gave illustrate otherwise. It is not clear to me how different the motivation and energy of Pasmanda Muslims, Mazhabi Sikhs, Dalit Hindus and Dalit Buddhists is to take on the caste system.
Regarding extreme Hindutvadis and egalitarianism, this is merely a conjecture. Note that extreme Marxists always professed egalitarianism, but they went about doing much of the same stuff extreme Hindutvadis are doing. I dont think a belief in some level of egalitarianism and being okay with violence, oppression etc are mutually exclusive.
Regarding the ‘laws of Manu’, it might have had a major impact on Indian society, but equating Hindu religion to Manusmriti seems like equating Islam to a Sharia text. One scholars opinion on the Manusmriti,
“The text was never universally followed or acclaimed by the vast majority of Indians in their history; it came to the world’s attention through a late eighteenth-century translation by Sir William Jones, who mistakenly exaggerated both its antiquity and its importance. Today many of its ideas are popularised as the golden norm of classical Hindu law by Hindu universalists. They are, however, anathema to modern thinkers and particularly feminists.”
Regarding the OBC response to Dalit assertion, I see this predominantly as a class response cloaked in the language of religion/caste. There are similar examples all over the world where there are no Hindus at all. If it was really a religious issue, the upper caste Hindus would have collaborated with OBCs to suppress Dalits. We have seen the very opposite happen in Uttar Pradesh, where Brahmins and Dalits came together to check the OBCs (for a while at least).
LikeLike
Vikram, In your earlier comment you say that it is a limitation of the Ambedkarite view that it does not seek to change the discriminator. I think it should be clear that Ambedkar himself saw his own conversion – along with thousands of others – to Buddhism as a way of fleeing from the fold of Hindu society. But that was just one part of his strategy – for his primary emphasis was on acquiring education and moving out of the prescribed role imposed on the dalits. ‘Educate, Organize, Agitate’ was his advice to his followers. He was clear that he of all people could not make the Hindus change their ways. That is why, he had proclaimed, way back in 1935 that “I was born a Hindu. I couldn’t help it, but I solemnly assure you that I will not die a Hindu.” He knew by then that he had exhausted all possibilities of reforming Hindu society and seeking dalit emancipation within it.
What is really interesting here is that it was Ambedkar’s bete noire Gandhi, the the tallest among the Hindu leaders who wanted to actually ‘change the discriminator’, came to pretty much the same conclusion about the possibility of reforming Hindu society, towards the end of his life. Gandhi, who had all along believed that it was the heart of the discriminator/ exploiter that had to be changed, realized that he had failed spectacularly in convincing caste Hindus even to the limited anti-untouchability programme he had been advocating.
In other words, experience makes it clear that the only way the discriminator will change is when he will have no one to lord over. One instance of this – from a brahman village in Azamgarh – struck me as quite remarkable. The brahmans now have to remove the carcases of dead animals themselves because the dalits are either simply not available (having left to neighbouring cities for work) or are now able (thanks to the power of BSPs presence) to refuse to do such work. This they were unable to do during the nara maveshi andolan that Badri Narayan’s work talks about. Ultimately, then, the issue is one of creating conditions, politically, that force a change – through the sheer power of organization, or simply by leaving the fold. Whether the latter step works or not; whether other religions continue to have some form of caste discrimination is something that the persons who convert, we must understand, will have the sense to judge. If they leave the religion they were born into, they may as well leave the religion they adopted. Or they may decide not to. The point is that both are their prerogative, not our business.
LikeLike
Aditya Nigam,
To what extent Ambedkar thought reforming Hindus is a lost cause is debatable. I say that only because if you look at the great mans work on the constitution of India, then one of his most significant contributions was the Hindu Code Bill which he himself drafted. Now what is even more interesting is that it was under his chairmanship of the Planning Commission that the commission decided to include all India-born religions under the Hindu Code Bill, the semantic importance of which cannot be understated. In 1951, when Nehru was unable to pass Ambedkar’s Hindu Code Bill, Ambedkar resigned, angry that his progressive bill that would cover almost 90% of Indians then was not passed in the face of stiff oppposition from groups like the RSS and conservative Congress Hindus. But Nehru was only waiting for the elections and he made the passing of the Hindu Code Bill an important part of his manifesto. He won a thumping victory and when his government came to power, he made speeches in the parliament and in the public to convince people of the instinctive justice of the new bill. It was then passed, not as a massive tome that it initially was but in parts-Marriage and Divorce, Succession, Adoption, etc in 1955-56 just before Ambedkar passed away. Ambedkar was thrilled that his bill was finally passed and said of Nehru, “He will be remembered also for the great interest he took and the trouble he took over the question of Hindu law reform. I am happy that he saw that reform in a very large measure carried out, perhaps not in the form of that monumental tome that he had himself drafted, but in separate bits”.
Thanks to this, Hindu women have the same rights as men in every field. In property, in marriage etc. Ambedkar’s Bill revolutionized Hinduism.
So when people say that Ambedkar had given up on Hindu reform, I’m not sure how far that is true given that he is one of the three people who has reformed Hinduism the most along with Nehru and Gandhi and this is including the long line of religious reformers.
Getting out of the caste mode takes time and Ambedkar’s conversion to Buddhism was out of his conviction for Buddhism as much as it was out of the long period of time he knew the change in upper caste Hindu mindset would take.
it is also important to note that his conversion came after his Hindu Code Bill was rejected and before it was passed again by Nehru. So i do not know what bearing that would have had on it.
Upper Caste Hindu barbarity sadly is still rampant, but i think things are getting better and are much better than what they were in Ambedkar’s time. Money is an amazing equalizer and rich Dalits I have interacted with do not have stories of discrimination to tell. Yes they are very few, and they are urban, but things are changing slowly and that should be a note of optimism. I just feel that when people say that there is no hope under Hinduism or for Hindus, it is a kind of pessimism that i am quite frankly scared of but also is not what i feel or see.
Regards
LikeLike
Aditya Nigam, responding with a new comment here since the replies start becoming very long. You said,
“Whether the latter step works or not; whether other religions continue to have some form of caste discrimination is something that the persons who convert, we must understand, will have the sense to judge.”
I agree. But this judgement cannot be made in isolation. There is an overall social and political environment that an individual finds oneself in and this is informed by debates regarding the effect of conversions on discrimination in a general sense.
The first question that we have to address is this, is the Hindu religion by its structure incapable of offering equality ? Are Hindus incapable of treating others equally, simply due to the fact that they are Hindus ? If the answer to this question is yes, then I agree that the Dalits have no choice but to leave Hinduism.
You have mentioned the experiences of Gandhi and Ambedkar, although not everyone would regard their efforts as failures.
“The brahmans now have to remove the carcases of dead animals themselves because the dalits are either simply not available (having left to neighbouring cities for work) or are now able (thanks to the power of BSPs presence) to refuse to do such work.”
Both the reasons given here have nothing to do with the adoption of a different religion. One reason is economic, and the other political.
Has anyone convincingly demonstrated that converting is an essential part of Dalit mobilization against social discrimination ? My understanding is that the adoption of Navayana Buddhism is an important part of Dalit cultural assertion. But making conversion a precondition for social equality is a very different matter.
LikeLike
Vikram, you clearly want to have the last word and I will not deny you that pleasure. All I want to reiterate for the benefit of those who are not simply interested in winning a point is:
1. I did not say, that religious conversion is the only way out. I have quoted Ambedkar’s own example in this respect, but clearly you are not interested in engaging with all that.
2. My point is simply that neither you nor I decide in this matter. It is entirely the prerogative of the one who wants to convert. You may want to satisfy yourself – or want proofs about whether Hinduism can be reformed. That is your business. Most people who convert have already reached that conclusion and it really does not matter what you ‘prove’.
LikeLike
It is unfortunate that this inference has been drawn from my comments. In any case, thank you for pointing me to Badri Narayan’s work on the Nara Maveshi Andolan.
LikeLike
The author says
In that case, why expect the state to intervene at all in this sacred realm? After all, even from the gods of their ancestors, people expect material benefits. What is the worship of Lakshmi all about, and students’ earnest prayers during examinations? Why not ask the state to enact laws against the performance of pujas and religious ceremonies in general for material benefit?
——————————————————————————————————————-
My answer is 3 pronged-
1. We might have heard about tribals who live near a volcano and treat the volcano with reverence. That is not because of the prayers to the volcano that it don’t erupt and cause damage. Is it not possible that life is made possible for them due to the rich mineral rich soil given to them by the volcano and they want to thank the volcano for that? Have you considered the fact that Hindus are thankful to Laxmi or Saraswati or even to the holy cow for the same reason and that maybe the reason for worship.
I am an agnostic and I don’t believe in god, I worship the nature though. Why? because it is due to the nature that has given me all the wonderful things that I enjoy. And this is again the reason in my previous comment why I said that you err in trying to compare something that is spiritual to something that is material.
Christianity recognizes only 1 god and believes that all else is falsity. I don’t want to be persecuted for the same reason.
2. It took the state nearly 60 years to make right to education and it can be hoped that it will take another 60 to implement in spirit(due to whatever reasons). It has taken the state 65 years to even say that food is the right of the people. The state is lazy to educate its citizens and as I said more educated people in the west are becoming less religious because they have a choice. Why do you expect an hungry,ignorant tribal slob who is not cared for by the government to take up arms against the government and become a naxal and kill? If the government can fight against naxalism(an ideology) then why can’t it pass laws to check the growth of a religion which uses the same tactic. Is it not possible that tomorrow we have Christian militias who fight the government for control of the land?
3. Third, I will not even go about the loss of culture and beliefs which happens due to conversion.So many tribes are on the verge of losing their original beliefs by accepting the christian version of god. I don’t know what you have got to say about that. You are talking about minorities then how about you also talk about the loss of heritage and culture suffered by tribal minorities in the vast hinterland of the country?
Therefore it is imperative that the government pass such laws.
LikeLike
There should be nothing controversial about the right of human beings to adopt or discard religions. On a historical note, you can draw parallels from the concerns and arguments of Hindus over these mass conversions of Dalits to Buddhism to those expressed by the white Christian majority in the US against Black Muslims during the Civil Rights Movement.
There was a period in the late 50s and the 60s when the religion of Islam, with its emphasis on religious brotherhood and equality, caught fire among African-Americans, subjected for centuries to enslavement, partly justified on the basis of Christian scripture sanctioning the practice, and still enduring the brunt of Jim Crow laws in the South and de facto discrimination in the North. Malcolm X was at the helm of leading the conversions to Islam. In his autobiography, he recounted his tireless work to establish, in relatively short time, sizable black Muslim communities in the major cities. He would wait outside churches to approach congregants as they emerged after services, and he would stand on street corners, day after day, making the case for Islam and arguing against Christianity as a religion forced upon blacks during slavery and complicit in their oppression. The black Muslim communities were not only active in politics, but also in establishing enterprises to employ blacks and to serve black patrons, to build self-sufficiency.
Their quick rise alarmed and threatened the Christian majority. They were demonized in newspapers and television as extremists and radicals devoid of Christian virtue and who sought to undermine American society. A major American television network, CBS, ran a program in this mold titled ‘The Hate That Hate Produced’, castigating the black Muslim converts as a hate group. These efforts to decry the conversion of black Christians to Islam and the portrayal of the converts as hateful separatists were ultimately successful, resulting in the distancing and marginalization of black Muslims even within the black community.
In this context, the consternation of Hindus and their desire to portray this mass conversion of Dalits to Buddhism as controversial and even threatening is not surprising. Their response arises from uncomplicated majoritarian politics and fears over loss of political power. I don’t think they will be successful in stemming such conversions as American Christians were, because orthodox Hinduism seems incapable of change on the issue of caste. Slavery thrived in Christendom for many centuries, but in the 18th and 19th centuries, there arose a strong abolitionist movement to challenge traditional views on the issue. Their spiritual descendants and their tradition, embodied in Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., formed an important part of the civil rights movement, alongside the secular, communist, Jewish, and Muslim elements. Of course, issues of racial equality and other forms of racial oppression still endure to this day, but the liberal Christian tradition also remains significant and willing to confront their conservative and fundamentalist counterparts. But, I see no such vibrant liberal tradition among Hindus that is a part of the mainstream conversation.
Gandhi is upheld as a symbol of this supposed Hindu left, of Hindu tolerance, but even he resorted to apologetics when it came to caste. He campaigned for practices such as inter-caste dining and marriage and against discrimination, but ultimately he could never abandon the structure of caste in his thinking. Today, you can encounter Hindus of his mold who’ll decry discrimination, and then with the same breath provide justifications for the institution of caste (often, its rhetorical substitute of ‘varna’) as it supposedly was in a mythical past, eons ago, and how it can still be revived. They might oppose discrimination themselves, but as long as they attempt to justify the institution in the name of caste or varna, or the texts which define these structures, they continue to provide legitimacy to those Hindus who do practice casteism and discrimination.
Where are the truly liberal Hindus who’re willing to discard caste altogether and to challenge the texts or at least those passages, even those in the Vedas and the Gita, which legitimize it? How assertive and vocal are they in the national conversation? They’re either silent in cowardice or non-existent. What truly liberal and progressive theologies are being articulated by Hindus today? The only socially and politically relevant face of Hinduism is Hindutva, which upholds the worst elements of the religion, the least worth preserving, and the kind of Hinduism which deserves to die.
LikeLike
Buddism or buddists never devide people by their origin of birth unlike followers of other religions
LikeLike