The die is cast(e) for the battle of the ignorant

On the back of the state elections under way, the terms of the public discourse for the 2024 general elections appear set – ‘Sanatana Dharma’ vs ‘Jati’ -- to capture the voters’ allegiance. Neither term lends itself to a literal translation in English without diminishing its meaning. Loosely translated, they can be taken to mean ‘eternal righteousness’ and ‘responsibilities devolved by tradition’, respectively. Both Sanatana Dharma and Caste as belief systems rest on two pillars: ‘Shruti’ -- that which is heard -- or received wisdom; and ‘Smriti’ -- that which is remembered -- or committed to memory. Shruti goes back to the Vedic period, having been transmitted through the ages in the oral tradition, till they came to be written down in the early centuries of the Christian era. Smriti ranks lower in authority and the principal one is the Manusmriti -- a compendium of laws governing the individual, family, and social life. The Hindu philosophical tradition rests on the Prasthana-Treyi: the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and t he Brahma Sutras.

Much in these scriptures is profound, much in them is sound practical advice, but much in them is discriminatory, besides being non-empirical and non-scientific. Aspects of these texts have also provided convenient rationalisation for segregation, reinforcing the hegemony of the few over the many. Though he described himself as a Sanatani Hindu, Mahatma Gandhi said, we should look upon these ancient texts as the works of poets, great poets indeed, but nonetheless just the works of mortals. The texts as we now possess them have been through interpolations, distortions, deletions, and distillation. We do not even know, Gandhi said, that a sage named Manu ever lived.

There is a misplaced conception that the Hindu tradition is other-worldly. Regardless of whether this is true or not, its consequences are very much of this world. The philosophic worldview of Sanatana Dharma was exceptionally well-articulated and rests on three key elements: man’s view of nature -- internalising the view that the natural, empirical world of trees and rocks just does not exist, or that it is all Maya; man’s view of the social world -- internalising the view that all relations with fellow men embody relationships beyond his control, or that it is all Karma; and man’s view of man himself -- internalising the view that he is an inadequate, subordinate, isolated abstraction, or that he is a mere non-corporeal essence termed Atman. It established a worldview anchored in each individual, and one that reproduces itself, thus establishing what Antonio Gramsci described as ‘hegemony through a permanently organised consent’. 

Despite this long and complex history, and in the backdrop of the political discourse extant, it is not unreasonable to presume the complete unfamiliarity of the many politicians engaging in the discourse in unseemly manner, with the texts concerned. They seem to know so little about our own tradition. What they know, they know second-hand. Ironically, this is one of the principal reasons why the negative externalities of the tradition have survived unchallenged so long. 

Unfortunately, few read the texts. An open mind reading these texts would have spotted the inconsistencies and the several illogical arguments, and most of all, how far removed from the concerns of the common man they are. Instead, the practices that have flowed from the worldview of these texts have been rituals and superstitions which have come to dominate the popular imagination. Sanatana Dharma as orthodoxy emerged as an influential feature in the development of a doctrinally non-confrontational, pan-Hindu identity. This common identity was critical to the conception of the Hindu nation in the early 20th century -- an idea which has since developed into a significant force in Indian cultural life. Now, in the race for votes, Sanatana Dharma and the spectre of Caste are antithetical political totems.

Instead of holding these ancient belief systems in irrational reverence, society would benefit if this antagonism was re-examined to separate the grain from the chaff. The conjectures that each makes needs refutations: The exclusive emphasis of Sanatana Dharma on the spiritual quest, and looking inward, together conspire to deny the significance of the wretched of the earth, of those who have no option but to toil with their hands, and who have no time than to think of where their next meal will come from. This runs counter to an
equitable society that is secular and scientific. 

Equally, Jati Dharma, compelling diverse groups jostle to declare themselves backward and fragment into small groups seeking largesse from the State, runs counter to a society that is modern and progressive. In all of this, who cares about half the population -- women? No surprise, then, that patriarchy and gender discrimination continue unabated. We need to reverse this by emphasising the principles enshrined in our Constitution.

This is not to say that we must refute our tradition entirely. In our history, alternative worldviews have helped create a more just and equal society. The Buddha’s message was one such great refutation predicated on two imperatives: First, refuse to accept the scriptures as infallible guides merely on the basis of faith. Similarly, he would not want us to adopt a slavish attitude to his teaching. He would not want us to abdicate our reason and responsibility to think for ourselves. Second, only the one who has himself engaged in the search for truth, only the one who has engaged in human emancipation can claim the moral authority to question the scriptures or provide an alternative worldview. And the Buddha urged that one be led to this formulation as a result of one’s own struggle.

The message of the Tathagata was one of righteousness, in the simplest words possible, and in the language of the common people. The Buddha’s teaching need never be lost: that ethical conduct requires the training of the mind; and that the value of the spiritual quest should be judged by the social advance towards a just and egalitarian society. Recognising this will make India a better place. 

(The writer is Director, School of Social Sciences, Ramaiah University of Applied Sciences)