Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-IV --- BY BHAGWAT PRASAD RATH

       Stuart Kauffman is a biologist; professor of biochemistry at the University of Pennsylvania and a professor at the Santa Fe Institute.  This highly –talented   Professor almost summarized the findings of the computer scientists who simulated the process of evolution in the computers     

He wrote, ‘Although Darwin presented natural selection as an external force, what we’re thinking of is organisms living in an environment that consists mostly of other organisms.  That means that for the past four billion years, evolution has brought forth organisms that successfully coevolved with one another.  Undoubtedly natural selection is part of the motor, but it’s also true that there is spontaneous order’. 

 Stuart Kauffman devised the phrase ‘ORDER FOR FREE’ to explain evolution.

To quote Kauffman, ‘But if there’s order for free then some of the order you see in organisms is not due to selection.  It is due to something somehow inherent n the building blocks.  If that’s right, it’s a profound shift, in a variety of ways.’ Using his ideas, he hoped to devise processes for making new genes. He said, ‘within five years, I hope we’ll be able to make vaccines to treat almost any disease you want, and do it rapidly.  We’re going to be able to make hundreds of new drugs.'   

All the computer scientists interested in evolution agree on one point.   Nature should be left free to move in the direction it chooses.   Socialism is a natural product and will prevail if we do not interfere in the work of nature. Matricentricism is nature’s choice. Matricentric values constitute the core of evolutionary socialism. We can not have true socialism if male-values dominate society.  The addition of a few needed patricentric values to the core matricentric values leads to creativity (Ashis Nandy: Self-Images Identity & Nationality). This is ideal for a development – oriented socialism. 

AS Kauffman says freedom is the base on which evolution stands.  Freedom is another word for non-violence. In a group no member can enjoy freedom if there is violence.  Violence leads to domination and domination leads to control. In the process of evolution order comes only if there is no controller.  Evolution is self- organizing and spontaneously leads to order.         

In the News paper Odisha Post (24.01.2012) there was an article titled “Male Sex Drive, the root of all evils”.  In that essay it is written, “The Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology claim that it is actually the male warrior instinct which has helped men evolve to be aggressive to outsiders (philosophical trans-actions of Royal Society ‘B’) ‘……. In contrast, women are naturally equipped with a ‘tend and befriend’ attitude, meaning they work to resolve conflicts peacefully in order to protect the children.’

We have interfered with the processes of nature.  The evils haunting human society are only because of our interference. Nature was using female brain as a motor of human evolution.  That led to a matricentric society where aggression and hierarchy were absent. Aggression and hierarchy are present in the male brain only, not the female brain. (The Male Brain by Louann Bridzendine, MD). Males and females enjoy equal status in matricentric societies.

In Frontier August 24-30/2014, Saral Sarkar writes in the essay ‘PC’s Critique of ‘Socialism’.

“Paresh Chattopadday (PC) is right in almost all points (Frontier, August 3-9, 2014).  The question that must now be asked is: Does it make any sense at all to still try to create socialist society that Marx and Engels had envisioned?..........  Also, PC’s awe-inspiring scholarship is of little use unless he presents his conclusion as to the question “What is to be done today”.

‘Drawing our attention to the book LIMITS TO GROWTH (1972), he calls for a paradigm shift in our thinking and activity.’

‘As for revolution, I would like to quote Walter Benjamin.  He wrote: “Marx says revolutions are the locomotive of world history. But perhaps it is entirely different.  Revolutions are perhaps the attempt of humanity travelling in a train to pull the emergency brake.”

If it was not true when Benjamin wrote this, it is true today.  In the same sense, another German author, Carl Amery, wrote in the general sense: ‘Political activists have till now tried to change the world in various ways.  The point however is to preserve it.’ 

What is to be done? Our task is to preserve the biosphere and change the world’.

(FRONTIER August 24-30, 2014).

Fritjof Capra writes ‘……a deep ecological ethics is urgently’ needed today, and especially in science, since most of what scientists do is not life-furthering and life preserving but life-destroying.  With physicists designing weapon- systems that threaten to wipe out life on the planet, with chemists contaminating the global environment, with biologists releasing new and unknown types of micro-organisms without knowing the consequences, with psychologists and other scientists torturing animals in the name of scientific progress- with all these activities going on, it seems most urgent to introduce ‘eco-ethical’ standards into science.

(Deep Ecology – A New Paradigm)

‘Love for all the living beings’ is what nature wants from human beings.  Nationalism is a predatory institution.  It is a product of the warrior society.  As long as collective selfishness exists in any form, humanism cannot flourish in the world.  We should maintain the web of life so that all living beings are treated by us with care.  Pre-Vedic India called it SARVA-JIVA-MAITRI.  The Buddha and Mohavira were votaries of non-violence towards all living creatures.   The Book Dhammapada is the Bible of the Buddhists.  The Buddha said:-

i).         He is not noble who injures living beings.  He is called noble because he is harmless towards all living beings. (Verse No.270: Dhammapada).

ii.).       Those disciples of Gotama ever awaken happily whose minds by day and night delight in the practice of non-violence. (Verse No.300: Dhammapada).

The core value of Jainism is ‘Non-violence’.  

The Mahabharata says that the highest aim of DHARMA is non-violence (Adi-parva).  The Mahabharata also says that we should treat all living creatures as our brothers and sisters and   we should work for their welfare    (SANTIPARVA).     In the last chapter of the Mahabharata, the writer VEDAVYASA says ‘DHARMA is the source of wealth and pleasure’.  He exhorts all to follow DHARMA in all their activities  in all circumstances avoiding  greed and even at the risk of life   (SWARGAROHANA PARVA).

Why has pre-Vedic India given so much importance to non-violence? No other society in the world was so fanatically in love with non-violence.  The answer comes from two sources: historian Shereen Ratnagar and a geneticist of Harvard fame, Spencer Wells.  Ratnagar says that there was no nomadic shepherd tribe in India. We may presume that there were no hunters. In other countries hunters transformed into nomadic shepherd tribes. Except in India, hunters and later nomadic shepherd tribes dominated public activities in all other counties.  Spencer Wells in his book The JOURNEY OF MAN refers to archeological evidence to prove that India was the only country in the world where killer apparatus was not available 50,000 years ago.   The absence of killer apparatus in India for a pretty long period indicates that the gatherer society existed in pre-Vedic India. So India alone in the world developed a civilization based on the norms of the gatherer society. There was no interference with nature’s smooth movement.  Nature had perfect freedom to develop a gatherer’s society. Women played a key role in this society.  The stress on non- violence was the result of this phenomenon.   Mohenjodaro Harappa civilization which was a product of this society was unique in the world in having a non-violent society where kings and priests played no role.  The two philosophies that guided this society were Samkhya and Yoga (Mahabharata). Actually the philosophy that had the greatest influence in pre-Vedic India was Lokayat (Arthasastra: Kautilya). Lokayatika Jabali played a role in the Ramayana. Lokayatika Charvak was murdered in the Mahabharata. Lokayatikas were the greatest critics of the Vedic society. Attempts wore made to hound them out from the cultural life of the Indian society.  These attempts succeeded to a great extent. Lokayatikas were dubbed as hedonists and ridiculed unfairly. No other philosophy in India can be called hedonistic except the philosophy of Tantra. Samkhya, Yoga & Lokayat were the philosophies of pre-Vedic India.  These philosophies were atheistic in character.  Because they were matricentric philosophies, non violence became their core value. They were one hundred percent dependant on rationality (Kautilya).  The hetuvadi (rational) philosophy Nyaya was their progeny. (Aanwikshiki, Samkhya, Yoga & Lokayat) continued its existence till 100 B.C. (Radhakishen – Indian Philosophy part-II).  Unlike the matricentric pre-Vedic society in India, the Greek society was a patriarchal warrior society. So Greek philosophies were of a different nature from the pre-Vedic philosophies of India.

To repeat what was said earlier, nature working freely produces order and that is the best nature -directed creation possible.  In the words of Prof. Stuart Kauffman it is ORDER FOR FREE.  The only society in the world that nature evolved freely was Mohenjodaro Harappa society.

All organs of predatory societies were devices of the male brain.  ‘It thrives under competition, instinctively plays rough, and is obsessed with rank and hierarchy.’  (The Male Brain, Louann Brizendine, MD). To repeat what Marx said in the context of the formation of human consciousness. ‘The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general’.  Through out the world, the male hunters dominated the societies.  In pre-Vedic India alone, gatherers continued to have more influence in society.

 Thus the most peaceful matricentric society continued in India till the advent of the Rig-Vedic society. Rig-Veda tells us that Vritra and Namuchi were killed by Indra. From the Mahabharata we know that both were Yogis. The growth of intelligence continued in pre-Vedic India leading to the formation of the most scientific society in the world.  While in all other parts of the world superstitions and belief in mysticism gained sway because of the existence and domination of priests and Shamans, India was free from any type of religion.  Food gatherers had the highest status in society (JAINISM---BHOGABHUMI: the Mahabharata, Santiparva—Unchabruti Brahmins).  Later agricultural products got added to the natural means of subsistence though the culture continued in the matricentric stage. 

Yoga and Samkhya are the same (The Bhagvad Gita).  Samkhya and Lokayat  are the same (Jaina Sutra : D. P. Chattopadhya’s book ‘Lokayat’).

Lokayatikas opposed the caste system, Niyativad (the rule of fate) and Karmavad  and supported non-violence at all levels. They opposed the theory of rebirth.  The Vedic priests fiercely opposed them.  Because of Lokayat’s opposition to Karmavad and the theory of rebirth, even Buddhists and Jains did not support them.  In the Mahabharata, we come across Charvak who was a leader of a group of Brahmins who did not accept gifts from any one.  Charvak was killed by Vedic priests who got support from the Pandava dynasty.  The Pandavas were angry with Charvak because he opposed war- violence Indulged in by the Pandavas. The Mahabharata and Ramayana are patriarchal epics.  Both the societies were those of warriors.  In Ramayana, we meet Jabali, a Lokayatika. Ramayana calls him an excellent Brahmin.  His preaching of non-patriarchal values was roundly denounced by Rama who was deeply attached to patriarchal values. The Mahabharata contains a lot of information about the past matricentric society that existed in the pre-Vedic age.  Study of the Sindhu civilization provides us with a lot of material that indicate the wide prevalence of matricentric values. More women’s figurines exist in that society than male figurines.

What type of society existed in Mohenjodara and Harappa civilization?  Historians agree that there were no kings, warriors or priests in this society.  The Mahabharata says that an Ideal society existed in India in Satyayuga.  Sacrifice (Yagna) was absent in that society.  There was only Yoga in the Mohenjodara Harappa society. Yogis had the highest status in society.  This phenomena continued till the end of the Mouryan age (Megasthenes).  Goutama Buddha was influenced by the philosophy of Samkhya and Jainism accepted the philosophy of Yoga.     

Mohenjodara Harappa society was an egalitarian society.  No social classes excited in the Indus Valley.   Thus writes R. Rajagopalan in his book Indus Valley ‘If social classes had existed, then some people would have bad better food and hence better growth.  This would be shown in their teeth and bones.  Now 350 skeletons from five major sites do not show any significant difference!  There are also no royal tombs.  It is possible that the Indus Civilization was maintained at an advanced level without social classes, central authority and warfare! If we can prove this, the Indus Civilization would be shown to have been a truly exceptional one –unmatched even by today’s democracies and republics!’  The Mahabharata gives ample proof that this civilization was a unique one and reached a higher level than what was dreamt of by all the utopian philosophers of the world.  Leading computer scientists have discovered that nature has evolved its own unknown methods   to go ahead of all the plans and  endeavors directed by our knowledge of social sciences.    

Indian epics, though fully patriarchal in character, differ from the western epics in certain matters because of the influence of the matricentric past.   In Homer’s Iliad, the Greek heroes slaughtered the male folk of Troy and made Trojan   women their sexual slaves. No such thing happened in Lanka after Rama’s victory.  The Mahabharata says that not a single Kuru woman’s right to live independently was violated by the victorious Pandavas.

Patriarchy got established in India through legends that tell big lies. Parsuram murdered his mother by following his father’s order.  His mother got back her life when Parsuram’s father granted him the boon mentioned by him. This boon is definitely a big lie.  Similarly that Bhishma was granted the boon by his father of dying only when he wanted it, is a big lie. No man can have such powers. These legends show that patriarchy replaced matricentric values in India through violence and cultural fraud.  The legend of Swetaketu, the son of Uddalaka, illustrates how patriarchy thrived because the sons went against the matricentric value of sexual independence enjoyed by their mothers. 

Tantra is a combination of the ancient matricentric value of woman’s sexual independence and Vedic hedonism. Tantra gained prominence in the fifth century AD.        

Science benefitting civil society (unlike the other countries ruled by the male warriors) scaled great heights in the Sindhu society. 

Science in the use of advanced civic planning

‘The Harappans built almost entirely in brick, both sun-baked and kiln-fired, and the excellence of their firing is well attested by the survival, albeit under ground, of so many structures in such a comparatively friable material.  In assuming their bricks to be ‘of a modern type’, Bhandarkar was unwittingly paying the Harappan brick makers a generous compliment’.

 (India: John Keay :  The Harappan World: C3000-1700 BC).

‘The ubiquitous bricks, for instance, are all of standardized dimensions, just as the stone cubes used by the Harappans to measure weights are also standard and based on a modular system.’

(The Harappan World).

‘Clearly Harappan settlements were not just India’s first cities and townships but its first, indeed the world’s first, planned cities and townships.  Town-planning not being conspicuous in the subcontinent’s subsequent urban development, they have been hailed as the only such examples until, in the eighteenth century AD, Maharajah Jai Singh decided to lay out his ‘pink city’ of Jaipur in Rajasthan’.

(The Harappan World).

‘The spinning and weaving of cotton, for instance, in which the Harappans seem to have been the world’s pioneers, must have been gradually disseminated throughout India, since by the mid-first millennium BC it was commonplace.  The finer textiles were by then an important item of trade and would remain so ever after, enticing to India Roman, Arab and eventually European merchants.’

(The Harappan World).

‘Again, the Harappans may have been the first in the world to use wheeled transport.  Numerous toy carts in terracotta and bronze testify to their pride in this technological breakthrough, and the generous street widths of their cities were presumably dictated by the consequent traffic.’

(The Harappan World).

Their waste water disposal system was unique in the world.  The drains were well made and compare well with the water drainage systems of the best cites of the present.   

‘No site has certainly been identified as a temple, and most suppositions about sacrificial fires, cult objects and deities rest on doubtful retrospective reference from the Hindu practices of many centuries later.’

(The Harappan World).

Religion did not have any influence on Sindhu society.  The society was guided by Aanwikshiki philosophers in whose praise Arthasastra spared no words. There was no caste system in Sindhu society (Charvak). 

    

Their weights and measures were accurate.  They discovered and developed a written language.  Unfortunately, this capacity to use a written language was lost in the Vedic age.  Indians again started using a written language after a lapse of more than one thousand years. For that, they had to borrow scripts from other countries.

(To be continued in Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism: Part-V)

Bhagwat Prasad Rath,

3^rd Line, Roith Colony,

At/PO/Dist. – Rayagada –2

PIN- 765002, Odisha.

Phone No. 06856-235092

Cell No.-08895860598

bagwat_prashad@rediffmail.com

www.samalochana1.blogspot.com

www.samalochana.blogsome.com

                                                                                             satyabhamajankalyantrust@rediffmail.com

Evolutionary (Science-Directed) Socialism : Part-I by Bhagwat Prasad Rath

              Science is scaling new heights. New problems are threatening our existence. Nature is our master. We have to learn from it. So, instead of repeating parrot- like what earlier great thinkers wrote about socialism, we must subject all thoughts to ruthless criticism. Kisen Patnaik, a leading Lohia socialist thinker, with profound sadness, lamented the poverty of thought at the world level. Einstein is one of our path- finders.
             He wrote the seminal essay ‘Why Socialism?’  Einstein Wrote, ‘But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future’

           Thorstein Veblen wrote that the four predatory institutions that dominate our societies are ‘rulers, warriors, men of religion and sports men’ C. Wright Mills, a great socialist of America adds more twentieth century predatory institutions to the list of Thorstein Veblen. They are ‘media – moguls, film- stars and film- makers’. Thorstein Veblen says that these institutions indulge in ‘crack- pot realism’ and wallow in the slough of conspicuous consumption. C. Wright Mills agrees with him. To –day’s most powerful predatory institution is that of finance – dictators. Can we dream of a society free from these predatory institutions?

           The world is divided into different groups of humanity who are constantly warring with each other. As Tagore said, ‘the world has been divided into fragments by narrow domestic walls’. Psychologists like Erich Fromm think that insane people are powerful in all most all predatory institutions.

          The greatest living intellectual of the present world, Noam Chomsky, says, “In the moral calculus of capitalism, greater profits in the next quarter outweigh the fate of your grand children.”

          Harvard professor Robert Stevens accuses the government representatives in the IPCC panel (Inter- governmental panel on climate change) of deleting 75% of the report prepared by scientists. That Governments are subservient to the profit-crazy corporations is no secret. Next to climate change, the other grave issue that bedevils human future is the preparation for war by the states, particularly the rich ones. The US tops the list of world warmongers. The greatest danger comes from the existence of nuclear weapons
.
         Like Kisen Patnaik, P. M. Sweezy, a great Marxist thinker, is worried about the poverty of thought. After the collapse of communist societies in the world, P.M. Sweezy, in his essay ‘A Crisis in Marxist thought’ (The book is ‘Post-Revolutionary Society’) wrote that Marx’s idea was ‘…. It (The Communist Society) would be a classless society, a stateless society and a society of genuine and not merely formal or legal equality among nationalities, races, sexes, and individuals …… These goals would certainly be very long term in nature and might never be fully achieved…… Certainly they establish guidelines and rough measuring rods. Only a society genuinely dedicated to these goals and shaping its practices accordingly can be considered socialist in the Marxian meaning of the term.

          Now, as I have already indicated, the generally accepted Marxian interpretation of modern history leads us to expect that capitalism will be overthrown by proletarian revolutions, and that these revolutions will establish socialist societies. The theory, in fact, is so taken for granted as a reliable clue to what is happening in the world that every society which originates in a proletarian (or proletarian-led) revolution is automatically assumed to be and identified as a socialist society.

             And this is where the anomalies begin. None of these “socialist” societies behave as Marx-and I think. Most Marxists up until quite recently-thought they would. They have not eliminated classes except in a purely verbal sense; and……. they have not attempted to follow a course which could have the long-run effect of eliminating classes. The state has not disappeared; no one could expect it to, except in a still distant future; but on the contrary, it has become more and more the central and dominant institution of society. Each interprets proletarian internationalism to mean support of its own interests and policies as interpreted by it self. They go to war not only in self defense but to impose their will on other countries, even ones that are also assumed to be socialist. The result has been a deep crisis in Marxian theory…… the trouble with the Marxist hypothesis is that it quickly leads to many anomalies”.

                  Sweezy calls Marxism ‘….a magnificent and scientific creation far superior to anything achieved by bourgeois science…” Kunh in his epoch-shaking book ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolution’ says that science develops through a series of revolutions, each rejecting much that has gone before and starting on new foundations. His key concept is that of the paradigm- shift which means a new way of looking at reality. The capitalist, the socialist and the welfare societies are all at the predatory phase. All nurse predatory institutions, led by ‘crack-pot realists’ as pointed out by Thorstein Veblen. Evidently humanity is nurturing the death- wish and rushing headlong into colossal disasters. When did we come to such a doom – spelling precipice?

                 To quote Marx ‘The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness. (Preface to the Critique of Political Economy). Fifty thousand years back humanity made the wrong choice in the mode of production. The society of gatherers was mainly dependent on females collecting food material (80% of the food consumed by the family) from nature. The society was peaceful and contented.

               50,000 years ago, the mode of production changed from gathering fruits and roots to that of killing animals (even big ones) because of the efficiency of the killer tools invented in that period. As Marx said, this change brought about a change in consciousness. The social, political and intellectual life processes changed completely. The egalitarian society where men and women enjoyed equal rights gave way to the society of male- hunters dominating society. Labour lost its pre-eminent position in society. Instead of labour, the capacity to kill became the most respectable value in society. Thus started the first great exploitation, men exploiting women sexually and also in the field of labour when hunters turned into warriors. Women facilitated this process initially by preferring meat diet to fruit and root diet and choosing hunters to peaceful caring and sharing people as sexual partners. The chiefs of warrior society became kings and men imagined a super- natural king of kings whom they called God. Thus religions had their birth. The non-labouring leisure classes of rulers, warriors, men of religions and sports men cultivating physical fitness for becoming better warriors came into prominence. Thorstein Veblen’s book ‘The Theory of the leisure class’ refers to these classes as the important members of the predatory society that dominate the modern world. Not only economic science but all most all our systems of knowledge are not free from the predatory consciousness.


                   Capitalism is destroying society. Socialism is the only way out. What sort of socialism do we need? Man is a product of nature and society. Our knowledge of nature and society is always expanding. We have to take account of the latest discoveries in science. Does nature have a purpose in creating man? In the animal world, man alone developed the capacity to control the violent tendencies of his amygdale through his pre-frontal cortex. This shows a direction tendency from violence to non-violence. There is also the existence of mirror neurons in human brain alone. Mirror neurons are there in the brain of the chimpanzee. But they are much less in quantity. Mirror neurons are the nurses of empathy. This also shows a direction tendency towards solidarity (MAITRI) with all living beings.

                Brian Goodwin is a biologist, professor of biology at the Open University outside London. Erode. He wrote, …… ‘The metaphors I use are related to emergence and creativity and the concept of the creative cosmos. Evolution is an aspect of this creativity. The central metaphor I feel emerging in the new biology is all connected with creativity. You see, in genetic reductionism Whitehead’s fallacy of misplaced concreteness par excellence. Genes are not themselves creative but function within the context of the organism, which is.
                 Whitehead’s phrase for evolution is “the creative advance into novelty’. This dance of creation is a never-ending dance that goes nowhere but is simply expressing itself’…….

               ‘Darwinism stresses conflict and competition; that does’t square with the evidence. A lot of organisms that survive are in no sense superior to those that have gone extinct. It’s not a question of being “better than”, It’s simply a matter of finding a place where you can be yourself. That’s what evolution is about. That’s why you can see it as a dance. It’s not going any where, it’s simply exploring a space of possibilities………

               There’s still struggle in the sense that if you’re going to be creative you have to believe in you ideas and struggle for them. Every single species has a struggle. But because there is as much co-operation among species as there is competition, the struggle is to express your being, your nature. These are metaphors whereby science can begin to connect with the arts: people, being creative and playing. There’s nothing trivial about play. Play is the most fundamental of all human activities and culture can be seen as play.

                  There’s too much work in our culture, and there’s too much accumulation of goods. The whole capitalist trip is an awful treadmill that’s extremely destructive. It needs to be balanced out. This is why indigenous cultures are beginning to be recognized for their valuesbecause they were not accumulating goods; they were living in harmony. They were expressing their own natures as cultures. Nature and culture then come together.……”

                   FRANCISCO VARELA is a biologist, director of research at the centre National de Recherché Scientifique, and professor of cognitive science and epistemology at the Ecole Polytechnique, in Paris. He wrote, “I guess I’ve had only one question all my life. Why do emergent selves, virtual identities, pop up all over the place creating worlds, whether at the mind/body level, the cellular level, or the transorganism level? This phenomenon is something so productive that it does not cease creating entirely new realms: life, mind, and societies. Yet these emergent selves are based on processes so shifty, so ungrounded, that we have an apparent paradox between the solidity of what appears to show up and its groundlessness. That, to me, is a key and eternal question.”

                A great scientist, Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote, “In a sense human genes have surrendered their primacy in human evolution to an entirely new non-biological or super organic agent, culture.”

              Scientists at the world level are engaged in a controversy regarding the subject of socio-biology. EO Wilson, a prize-winner socio-biologist, thinks that the science of biology can provide the way to solve the problems of humanity. Scientists opposing him are led by Gould and Lewontin.

             A scientist writes, “….including Steven Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin… formed ‘The Sociobiology Study Group, noting… that theories that attempted to establish a biological foundation to social behaviour provided an ‘important basis… for the eugenic policies which led to the establishment of gas chambers in Nazi Germany”.

               American and European thinkers and scholars as well as thinkers and scholars of other countries influenced by them have missed the true path for humanity fixed by nature. The controversy regarding socio- biology among two groups of scientists illustrates this position.

               Einstein throws doubt on the systems of knowledge that are prevalent in the present predatory society. Both the groups supporting and opposing socio-biology become irrelevant in a non-predatory society though it can not be denied that the Marxist thinkers have a lofty aim.

               The phenomenon of emergence all ways leads to the creation of a new entity devoid of the qualities and characteristics of the constituting elements. The creation of man is an emergent phenomenon and can not be under stood by studying the genes alone. Genetic determinism is discredited but the role of science can not be denied in under standing humanity. Human societies took different shapes in different climes and different countries. Science was the greatest gift of nature to humanity and the only community, non-predatory in nature, used science (‘Science and Society in Ancient India’ by D. P. Chatterji) to reach great heights of world Maitri (SOLIDARITY) can not be ignored in the name of natural fallacy. The unique nature of ‘emergent’ man (‘woman’ is a more truthful word) in pre-Vedic India has not been studied properly by scholars.

                Has nature any purpose in creating man? All most all the leading scholars deny the role of ‘purpose’ in creation. Scientist Brian Goodwin uses the words ‘play’ and ‘dance’. In India, we have a better word. That word is ‘Lila’. Creation is nature’s ‘Lila’ and covers both the words ‘play’ and ‘dance’. The purpose of nature is that its ‘Lila’ does not come to a stop at any time. If any creature destroys other creatures by becoming omni-potent, nature’s ‘Lila’ can not go on. ‘Lila’ is a spontaneous process and can go on when all elements flourish and vanish spontaneously. Any type of violence will disturb ‘Lila’. Nature uses male nature of the carnivores (tigers, lions and other such creatures) to check their population. Carnivores destroy their own progeny. This goes against the conceptions of the survival of the fittest and the selfish gene (Richard Dawkins).

               Prof. Robin Dunbar and his colleagues give priority to social evolution before the brain development of the human species. According to them the bigger brain is the gift of nature to the animal whose range of Maitri (solidarity) extends to bigger circles of the same species.

 Bhagwat Prasad Rath,
 3rd Line, Roith Colony,
At/PO/Dist. – Rayagada –2
 PIN- 765002, Odisha. Phone No. 06856-235092
 Cell No.-08895860598
 bagwat_prashad@rediffmail.com
satyabhamajankalyantrust@rediffmail.com
 www.samalochana1.blogspot.com
 www.samalochana.blogsome.com

DECONSTRUCTING INDIAN HISTORY : THE ROOTS OF DALITS- BHAGWAT PRASAD

In his essay ‘Exploring the Historical Consciousness’ published in the Social Scientist (221-22); Ravinder Kumar Wrote, “As I traversed the gallery of art, it became obvious that it took Canadian artists about two generations to record faithfully the characteristics of the landscape that stood before their eyes……..The problems of visual perception that confronted early Canadian artists illuminate the dilemmas of historical writings in Third World societies”. Ravinder Kumar’s remarks are relevant in the context of exploring the roots of Dalitization in India. The unique dismal nature of the problem comes out in the writings of Swami Vivekananda. In a letter to his young admirer Alsinga in Madras, he wrote, “No religion on earth preaches the dignity of humanity in such a lofty strain as Hinduism and no religion on earth treads upon the neck of the poor and the low in such a fashion as Hinduism”.

Vivekananda’s heart-felt remarks find powerful expression in the writings of Ambedkar. “The existence of these classes (The Criminal Tribes, the Aboriginal Tribes, the Untouchables) is an abomination. The Hindu civilization, examined in the light of such social products (Untouchables) can hardly be called a civilization. It is a diabolical contrivance to suppress and enslave humanity. Its proper name would be infamy”. The untouchables: Preface. (B. S. Ambedkar’s writings and speeches vl.7)

Many sordid episodes narrated in the Jataka stories indicate how degraded the position of the Chandalas was in ancient India.

“……. The sight of Chandala was inauspicious (Jat-377), and daughters of a sresthi and priest washed their eyes after having accidentally seen a Chandala because he was not fit to be seen. They were considered low by caste (Jat-498)”. Beyond the Four Varnas: Identification, Rejection and Segregation (Prabhati Mukherji).

No wonder, Dalit intellectuals mince no words in condemning Brahmin-dominated Hinduism in India.

Indian civilization is not without its share of glories that dazzle the world. India gifted two of the greatest world figures to human history. They were the Buddha and Gandhi.

Amartya Sen writes, “Schopenhauer added, “That in contrast with the old, the New Testament ‘must somehow be of Indian Origin: This is attested by its completely Indian ethics, which transforms morals into asceticism, its pessimism and it’s Avatar (i.e. the person of Christ)”.

The Argumentative Indian: Indian Traditions and the Western Imagination.

Suniti Kumar Chatterjee writes in his Bengali Book. Indian Culture, “I consider three values foundational to Hindu culture: integration (Samanwaya), search for truth and non-violence”.

In India, how could the horror co-exist with the glory? How could atheistic rationalist India of the Buddha, Mahavir and Charvak coexist with the - Pseudo – Dharmic India of Dalit and Mlechha – haters? No other country contains so many books written by atheists and agnostics. Amartya Sen writes, “Sanskrit (including its variants Pali and Prakrut) has a larger literature in the atheistic and agnostic tradition than exists in any other language (Greek, Roman, Hebrew or Arabic)”.The Argumentative Indian: The Indian identity.

Andre Betelle made a telling comment to illustrate the paradoxical nature of Indian Civilization.
“But the growth of Indian Civilization was based on a very distractive pattern of accommodation which the noted anthropologist and writer Iravate Karve described as accretion. She observed, “…….. The historical process is one of continuous accretion. There does not seem to be a stage where choice was made between alternatives, a choice involving acceptance of one alternative and a definite final rejection of the other” India’s Identity. The Bhagavad Gita illustrates these contradictions co-existing in the culture of India. D.D. Kosambi has rightly observed, “Practically anything can be read into the Gita by a determined person” ‘Tolerance of diversity’ or in Vivekananda’s words ‘acceptance of diversity’ has preserved the unity of India. But structural inequalities must be combated to preserve healthy diversity.

To quote the historian R.S. Sharma, “Untouchables are not found in any other country. But in India they are as old as 400 B.C” Rethinking the Past: Problems of Members of Lower Orders.
Why did this abomination occur in India? Dalit intellectuals have the right to be heard with attention in this matter.

Thus say Dalit intellectuals: -
“From the beginning till today, Brahminism has established its hegemony over land, resources and people; Dalits reject any such hegemony…. Since the caste system has been firmly established in India, Brahmins claim to be superior to all other castes and have been pressing the Dalit oppression through millennia.”

Dalitology: Introduction.
Most of the upper class people believe that because of bad deeds (Karma) in previous lives, people are born as Dalits, but Dalits believe that their present degraded status is due to some historical accident or trickery played on their ancestors. (Suvira Jayaswal).

Dalitization and Brahmin dominance (Brahmans occupying the highest rank in society) are two sides of the same coin Without Brahmins becoming religious law- makers in Indian society, their efforts of social ostracism would not have succeeded. Why did the warriors submit to the hegemony of Brahmins? No Aryan society accepted the supreme status of the ritualizers. The supreme status was that of the warriors. The cattle raiders were the sword arm of Aryans. The priests sang the praises of warriors for Dana and Dakshina. In the book ‘From Lineage to State’ Romila Thapar writes.

“At the core of the Jana, the substantial division was the bifurcation of the Kshatriya and Vis. In the initial structure of the Varna system, both the Brahman and the Sudra could have been as it were addenda” Lineage Society.

S.C. Malik writes in the Book ‘Understanding Indian Civilization, “Early Rig- Vedic period: two types of social categories, the nobles or the Kshatriyas and the tribesmen or vish. But sometimes a third category of poet-priest ‘Brahman’ was added.” Structural Elements and Formation.

Describing the unique nature of Indian civilization, Louis Dumont writes in the book Homo Hierarchicus, “In ancient Egyptian or Sumerian kingship, or in the king ship of the Chinese empire, the supreme religious functions were vested in the sovereign, he was the priest par excellence”.
Appendix –C.

In India separation occurred. Kingship was secularized. Only priesthood was sacralized.

That Yogi Chiefs (later categorized as ‘Brahmins’: The Mahabharata, Shantiparva), ruled pre-Vedic non-Aryan societies cannot be doubted. In the Bhagavad Gita (4th canto), it is written that Rajarshees who ruled India in the past were Yogis. Then for a long time, Yoga remained unknown. Evidently, Rajarshees lost power and the new rulers, the Vedic nobility, fond of sacrifices, had no interest in Yoga. The Mahabharata (Canto-232) reveals that in Satyayuga, there was no sacrifice, no Vedas: there was only Yoga or Tapa (Shanti Parva Canto-79 explains Tapa as non-violence, truth compassion and control of senses which are the values of Yoga, Tapa had nothing to do with any type of torture of the body as believed in later days). ‘Namuchi appears to be noble (R.V. 10.73.7: ‘Asura’ by W.E. Hale). Non-violent chiefs like Vritra and Namuchi could easily be killed by Indra without any war. Romila Thapar writes in her essay ‘Some appropriations of the theory of the Aryan Race and the Beginning of Indian History’, “The question of theory of Aryan invasion arose from the paucity of archeological evidence suggesting such an invasion”. Death of their key leaders led to the flight of the indigenous city people from their habitations. (R.V. 1.30.12; 1.33. 6.7; 1, 51, 5, 1.53.8; 1.101.1; 1.117. 2; 1.149.3; 1.15.4; 6.27: Oroon Ghosh’s Bengali essay ‘Aryavijaya, KuruPandab and Krishna’). Romila Thapar writes, “It would seem that most of these cities were in the Sarawati and Punjab region. It is stated that the dark inhabitants fled and migrated. This would agree with the archeological evidence” (Her above –mentioned essay). Both Vritra and Namuchi, prominent Dasa Chiefs (Rajarshees) were killed by Indra and Rajarshee Bali was exiled. Indra had to suffer because of Brahmahatya (Brahmin – murder). The Mahabharata (Shanti Parva) also tells about Indra’s killing of a large number of Brahmins (Canto-33). In Prof. R. N. Dandekar”s felicitation volume ‘Amritdhara’ H.W Bodewitz writes, “Being ascetics, (non-violent), the Yatis cannot be killed by Indra with weapons. Therefore they are surrendered to the wolves or hyenas (Sala Vrikas).” Yatis (called ‘Brahmins’ in the Mahabharata) were forced to accept Vedic rituals performed in Uttara Vedis (Sacrificial place) to save their lives. To quote Bodewitz. “…. Bhrigu, according to Satapatha and Jaimininya Brahmans only became a ritualist after he had seen some horrible visions……”

Pre-Vedic nobility, the Yogis’ (Yatis) accepted sacrificial rituals because of threat. To make them join the Vedic Brahmins, Aryan leaders had to make the compromise of making sacrificial rituals bloodless. A myth of the Mahabharata makes it clear.

Once a quarrel took place between Devas (deities) and Rishis. Devas wanted the killing of animals in sacrifices. Rishis disagreed. Both the parties made King Uparichara Basu the mediator. When he sided with the Devas, Rishis became furious and cursed him. Ultimately the killing of animals in sacrifices was abolished. This myth shows that Vedic priests had to accept the dictates of the Rishis (Yogis) who dominated pre-Vedic Indian societies. Both Deva power and Kshatriya power proved futile in the presence of Rishi power. Rishis got absorbed in the Brahmin community because they accepted sacrifices as their Dharma. Regarding the prevalence of animal killings in sacrifices, in Irfan Habib-edited book ‘The Growth of Civilizations in India and Iran’ K.M. Shrimali writes, “Amongst hunting cultures, small but symbolically parts of animals slain during hunt is offered… . Slaying has the twin objectives of not only maintaining the cosmic order, but also furthering the cause of material sustenance.”

Further Srimali writes, “Sacrifice of both male and female animals, including Gav (Cow including bull) was practiced at all these shrines (Parsi shrines in Iran). It was only after the visit of Manoj Hatji Hataria, the first emissary of Parsis of India who came to Persia in 1854, that the sacrifice of cows at Banu Pars was stopped”. ‘The Rig-Veda and the Avesta’.

Aryan deities were imagined to be fond of animal sacrifices in all lands including India. But after fusion with the pre-Vedic yetis, all the deities (except many female deities), became vegetarians. Regarding the fusion of the two societies (The Aryan and the Dasa Varna), Romila Thapar in her presidential speech in the history congress (1969) on the subject, ‘Exploring Societies of the Early Past’ quoted the scholar G.C. Mallick thus, “Hence, it was, contrary to the general opinion, but rather the Indianisation of the Aryan nomadic pastoral hordes.” We cannot understand pre- Vedic India unless we study the Sindhu Civilization that existed before the Aryan migration to India. Edwin Bryant, lecturer in Indology, Harvard University, in his book ‘The Quest for the Origins of Vedic Culture’ makes a telling comment regarding the social and administrative set up of the Mohenjo-Daro Harappa Civilization. To quote him, “……it seems relevant to note a proactive new hypothesis suggested by Lamberg Karlosky … who draws attention to the astounding degree of cultural homogeneity in the vast area of Indus valley civilization juxtaposed with the lack of any evidence for a centralized political structure. Not only is there uniformity of culture, but the physical layout of the community is replicated, irrespective of whether it is the 5 acre site of Allahdino or the 150 acre site of Mahenjo Daro.

He notes that competition in a class- structured society results in a much wider variety of styles and methods of production, whereas in a caste system, much more uniformity is to be expected as is evidenced by the artifacts unearthed by the Indus valley sites. Caste organization would also explain the social stability of massive culture in the absence of a centralized, state or chieftainship.” That there was no Varna/caste system in Indus culture is asserted by J. N. Kenoyer, Professor of Anthropology (university of Wisconsin, Madison). He says, “Although there appears to have been occupational specialization in the Indus cities, the lack of separate burial area or highly differentiated habitation areas and material culture that rigidly defined social strata such as the later Varna systems or hereditary castes were not the norm”. India: Historical Beginnings and the Concept of the Aryan: Culture and Societies of the Indus Tradition.

That the caste system was foreign to pre -Vedic Indus culture is also proved by the remarks of the famous Lokayat philosopher Charvak. He has vehemently denounced Varna system headed by the priests (Sarba Darsana Sangraha). The Mahabharata speaks about two categories of people in pre-Vedic non-Aryan India. The aristocracy (Rajarshees-Gita) was distinguished by its devotion to the Yogic values of non violence, truth, limiting one’s wants, fraternity (MAITRI) etc. The Vedic words ‘Brahmin’ and Sudra were retrospectively used to categories the two classes of the pre-Vedic society. “Forgiveness, control of senses, anger-control are the qualities of ‘Brahmins’. Those who do not have these qualities are ‘Sudras’. ‘Gita press Mahabharata Aswamedha Parva (Page-6377)’.

No wonder king Sudas, a famous Kshatriya king of the Bharatan tribe, was called a Sudra in the Mahabharata. There are numerous verses / slokas in the Mahabharata mentioning dominating Brahmin values. ‘The Purity- Pollution principle’ is not included amongst them. The slokas mentioning this principle are interpolations.

As discussed earlier, Vritra, Namuchi and Bali were the Yogi -Chiefs of Sindhu societies Virtra was a mahayogi (283 Canto: Shanti Parva). Vritra maintained dams vital to the existence of cities and villages. He was having Agni and Soma as his friends. Indra had to bribe these two with the promise of sacrificial offerings before they forsook Vritra. ‘Vedic Vritra’: Virtra in the Later Vedic literature (A. K. Lahiri). Virtra, Namuchi and Bali had all the Yogic virtues mentioned in the Gita (cantos-223 to 227).

After Rajarshees Vritra and Namuchi were killed, Indra, because of fear and guilt, hid himself in a lake (Mahabharata Vanaparba -101 Canto). In the absence of Indra, the Devas chose king NAHUS (a king of the Moon Dynasty) to reign in Indra’s place (Nahus was also the name of a tribe- A. K. Lahiri)”. Indra went to the remotest distance, imagining, “I have committed a transgression. (Taitareya Samhita – VI5.5 Taitareya Brahmin 1.6, 7.4, Satapatha Brahman (VII: 4.1.3): A.K. Lahiri). After Indra’s demoralization, the panicky Aryas brought a tribal chief (Nahusa) to occupy Indra’s throne to pacify the local warriors. Soon Nahus showed power – hunger and the Devas headed by Brihaspati plotted his downfall. This was done by a trick that led to Nahus incurring the wrath of the leading Rishis.

Nahus’s downfall due to the wrath of the Rishis was a case of rift between Aryan nobility of mixed origin (rishis ) and a non-Aryan warrior tribe chief (Nahus). The Devas cleverly manipulated this rift between king Nahus and the leading Rishis. Because of the constant raiding, looting activities of the Aryan warriors, Dasyus, the aboriginal hunter communities, resorted to armed conflicts. Indra who had killed Virtra hid himself because he was afraid of incensed indigenous warriors. Viswamitra’s attempt to rob Vasista of his cow was also frustrated by the indigenous warriors. Indra seduced Ahalya (wife of Gautama- Rishi) and the result was a thousand arrow holes in his body. So he was called Sahasrayoni and later became Sahasraksha. Parsuram defeated the powerful king Kartavirya with the support of an army of indigenous tribes and the Ishkaku warriors. Parsuram was more a Kshatriya than a Brahmin (The myth of sacrificial product (CHARU) exchange by mistake illustrates this).

Nahus was cursed to become a Naga (Most of the Nagas became Dalits) and he lived in the forest. (Curses cannot be real. They only symbolize adverse occurrences due to strategically hidden real causes).

Naga Nahus who caught Bhīma in his coil put questions to Yudhistira, when he requested Nahus to free his brother.

Nahus asked Yudhistira questions about the basic qualities leading to Brahmin -hood. Yudhistira asserted that any human being who has internalized the values of truth, charity, non-anger, non-cruelty, non-violence and compassion is a Brahmin. A man who does not have them is a non- Brahmin. The caste system based on birth is an aberration. The only criterion is SILA (Values); not Achara (ritual), Mantra or Kula (caste). The critical question of the episode is, “Was Nahus cursed to become a low caste man?” Otherwise, why should he put questions that undermine the Varna-based hierarchical caste system?

Like Nahusa myth, the Yaksha myth in the vana Parva also stresses Sila (Yogic Yama values) for attaining Brahmin hood.

These two myths together, are meant to undermine the Varna system and also the process of Dalitization based on Kula (caste). The Mahabharata (Shanti Parva) also asserts that anybody of any caste can become a Yogi (Brahmin). Had Brahmin hood based on Sila prevailed in India, exclusion or Dalitization of some Dasyu communities would not have occurred.

The most militant amongst the ancient Yogis who opposed the birth – based caste system were Lokayats. They were also against Patriarchy. They were the leaders of Yogis (Shanti Parva: Conto-38). By eliminating Lokayats and their books, forcing the other nonattached Yogis and Samkhyavadis to become sacrificers (Brahmins), the ground was cleared to declare the greatest aboriginal warrior communities as Dalits. Rishi – Power- which dethroned and degraded Nahus was unleashed against powerful Dasyu Communities to make them Dalits.

Rishi (Bahaman) power was so great that even the top Rig-Vedic war-Lord Indra became a Rishi, a disciple of Prajapati, in the later Vedic age. He spent 101 years in Prajapati Ashram in search of truth about self. (Chhandogya Upanishad VIII: II: 3 – Dr. Subhra Sharma’s book ‘Life in the Upanishads P-163)’. Warrior gods like Vishnu and Siva occasionally became ascetics (Yogeswara).

Another myth that throws light on Dalitization is the myth of Sarpa yagna (The Serpent Sacrifice) king Parikshit lost his life in a war with Takshak. His son Janmejaya knew that he would not be able to defeat Takshak in a battle. So, he lured lots of Brahmins promising lavish Dakhina. He also took the help of Brahmin enemies of Takshak like Uttanga Rishi to declare entire Naga Kulas as Dalits in a great sacrifice.

Dalitization is a sort of death for any caste man or woman in India. Suvira Jayaswal narrates an incident which equates death with decastification she refers to a copper plate inscription of 1414 AD where the following incident is narrated. Twelve Kshatriyas, the attendants of the Tughlak king of Delhi committed a serious offence. For this they were ordered to be shot. Pundit Nandaram Chaube saved their lives by advising decastification (Caste P-131).

Dalitization was the method used to vanquish powerful enemies. Suvira Jayaswal in the History Congress (2007) referred to the weapon of social ostracism used by Nambudri Brahmins to destroy the influence of Buddhists in Kerala and convert their monasteries into Hindu temples. She quoted from the book ‘Buddhism in Kerala’ by P. C. Alexander.

It is absurd to say that Nagas fell in the sacrificial fire because of the power of the mantras. The truth is that they were excommunicated which was equivalent to death. When the Brahmin Youngman Astika belonging to the famed Jajabar kula entered the sacrificial ground with Brahmins who were sympathetic to Nagas, the sacrifice was abandoned to avoid a rift in the Brahmin community. Janmejaya was pacified by Takshak -daughter’s marriage to him.

Chandalas and Swapachas were the occupiers of the lowest space of the fifth caste. Chandalas were great warriors. Prabhati Mukherjee quotes from Kadambari (Katha Mukham, Purbabhaga) thus, “Their (Chandalas) leader was compared with Ekalavya…, wide forehead and chest, sharp nose and marks of weapons on his body showing him as a great warrior.” Regarding Swapachas Prabhati refers to Greek sources. “…….they were skilled workers…. they were apparently peace – loving and they maintained friendly relations through trade.” Life and Living of the Untouchables. Beyond the Four Varnas (Book). Some discussion of the British notified criminal tribes among Dalits is relevant here.

That Dalits were having warrior qualities is emphasized by R.S. Sharma in his book ‘Rethinking India’s past’. He says “…. In my early days all the fourteen Chowkidars or guards of my village were Dalit Dushadhas (name of the community). The term Dushadh is derived from Dusadhya which means difficult to control. (….the British Government also recorded them as criminals). ‘Rethinking the Past’.

In the District of Ganjam in Odisha, most of the village guards belonged to ‘Dandasi’ Dalit caste. The most daring and fierce dacoits belonged to this caste.

Vijaya Ramaswami writes in the book ‘From Tribe to Caste’. “The Maravas however found no acceptance in the hierarchical caste – based societies and consequently their frustrated militancy reveal them as anti- social elements. The Maravas and kallars who mainly inhabit the dry zones of Ramanath puram and Pudulkolttai acquired ill repute…. The Sethupatis of Ramanath puram, who offered such stiff resistance to British colonial rule, were Maravas.” The Kudi in Early Tamilham and Tamil Women.

Chhandogya Upanishad which is supposed to belong to 700 BC (Sukumari Bhattacharya) expresses deep hatred for Chandalas though they were not yet treated as untouchables. “We are told that for committing bad deeds in this life one would be born in the next life as a dog, a boar or a Chandala… The status of the Chandala … was inferior even to that of animals.”

Many centuries elapsed before the elite successfully categorized Chandalas as untouchables. Why were Chandalas hated so much? The most potent reasons come from anthropology and genetics. To quote from Ambedkar’s volume seven of his collected works (Pge-302), where he gives a lengthy extract from Prof. Ghurye’s writings, “… it is clear that the nasal index of the chuhra (the untouchables) of the Punjab is the same as the nasal index of the Brahmin of the United Provinces”. (This means that the Brahmin of the united Provinces has close physical affinities with the Chuhra and the Khatri of the Punjab than with any caste from his own province except the very high caste of the Chhatri – Ghurye)”.

What is the reason for this strange phenomenon? Summarizing the findings of the ASI’s (Anthropological Survey of India), D. Balasubramanian writes in his article ‘Who are we, the people of India?’. “All Indians have emerged from a small number of founding female lineages. Either a small number of females entered India or a small number was drawn from an ancestral population.” (The Hindu –Nov.2003) Aitareya Brahmin says that the sons of Viswamitra joined the Dasyus. Suvira Jayaswal in the History Congress said that according to Manu Smruti Dasyus were Chandalas. Kshatriya and Brahmin intrepid Young men and women found greater adventure in living with the Dasyus than participating in sacrifices repeating boring mantras.

A passage from R. S. Sharma’s book ‘Rethinking India’s Past’ deserves attention.

“A case of the presence of an Aryan tribe in Ladakh valley in Kashmir has been reported in the Times of India in Patna on 11th March-2006. It refers to an Aryan tribe living in three villages… Till 1870, they practiced polyandry and polygamy and kissed one another openly.”

In the Punjab region, numerous Aryan men and women must have chosen to breathe the less ritualized and less custom - restricted lives amongst the virile merry Dasyus whose women and men enjoyed more freedom, sexual and otherwise. (A survey showed that white male preference for Asian women and white women preference for black men is prevalent in the US) No other reason can explain Ghurye’s anthropometric conclusions.

Rig -Vedic Aryan society must have been upset by the phenomenon of Aryan women having sexual relations with Dasyus and bearing their progeny. They intensely hated the prominent Dasyu communities. They were aware of the temporary punishment of social ostracism prevalent in pre-Vedic society. When they reached the Ganga Yamuna Doab in later Vedic periods, they perfected the method of Dalitization and thus effectively stopped Aryan Youngman and women from joining the Dasyus.

Dalit formation continued through many centuries. ‘Charmakaras’ became Dalits during 600 to 1200 AD. Uma Chakravarthy writes in the book ‘Gendering caste (Chap-7)’ that in the eighth century Jats were considered untouchables. Because of their number and wealth (based on landed property), they got upgraded to the status of Sudra in the eleventh century. By the seventeenth century they were the leading peasantry in many areas. By absorbing the leading community of the pre-Vedic days which dutifully cultivated the values of non-violence and minimization of wants (Aparigraha) as Brahmins and gradually converting all types of Brahmins to accepting sacrifices that emphasized the purity pollution principle (Soucha) as the premier value of the ritualist and also by calumnyzing many communities as impure by birth, Dalitization became a reality in India.

As the disvalue ‘Soucha” has invaded the Psyche of Hindu men and women, constant –hammering at it by the utilization of the irrational but equality – sponsoring God-devotion principle as utilized by Kabir, Dadu, Tukaram and others may prove fruitful. We have to tackle it at the psychological level. The spread of reinterpreted Jagannath cult (every cult is irrational) and Rama cult (Gandhi used it to telling effect) may help. Dr. Ambedkar rightly gave a call to Dalits to convert to rebirth- concept- free rational Nabayana Buddhism.

While Brahmin law - makers affirm that Dalit communities were formed because of hypogamy (Pratiloma sexual relations), Chandalas believe that in the past they were Brahmins who became Chandalas by eating the food of Sudras. (Prof. Dipankar Gupta’s book ‘Interrogating caste’: Continuous Hierarchies and Discrete Castes). Chamars believe that they were originally Brahmins but because a young Brahmin, obeying his brothers tried to rescue a cow fallen in a river and the cow died in his hands, he was shunned by his brothers and became a Chamar (Ibid). Dalits’ belief in an historical accident or trickery of the high castes played on their ancestors or gemological founder for their plight is not baseless. Blaming imaginary miscegenation for caste – pollution is an example of learned trickery.

The question that troubles us is why this monstrous phenomenon was accepted by the whole society. Dalits no doubt resisted but the protests were sporadic and not universal. Suvira Jayaswal refers to the servants of Sakyas revolting and forcibly marrying Sakya women when circumstances gave them scope. R.S. Sharma refers to Kali Yuga crisis and the challenge to Brahmin ideology.

For exclusion of large communities from the mainstream, the principles of Dharma were distorted through manipulation and deceit. As stated earlier, the Brahmin Community gained in status because the pre-Vedic age Yogis, who had the highest rank in society (Megasthenes) were forced to join the post –Rig- Vedic Brahmin caste and accepted sacrifices as the kernel of Hindu Dharma. As stated earlier, the Lokayats who openly denounced Vedic Brahmins for their greed and violence were either co-opted through temptations (Brihaspati) or murdered (Charvak). For ages the Vedic elite abused Lokayats as Raksasas and made Herculean efforts to vilify and eliminate them. Madhavacharya of the 14th century accused them of advising people to take loans to eat ghee. This is a malicious lie. Madhavacharya was a scholar devotee of Vedanta. He had biased opinions about Buddhists, Jains and Charvak. His famous treatise Sarva Darsana Samagraha contains prejudicial statements about these three Nastika groups. Charvak was the greatest philosopher of the ancient world: He was against Patriarchy. He believed in the equal sexual freedom of men and women (Naishadha Kavya). He opposed male dominance and violence. His conception of human brain as an emergent entity tallies with the latest discovery in the field of science (Leading Biologist Francisco Varela’s idea of ‘Autopoesis’ is about such emergent entities). Charvak’s thoughts were ahead of Descate. He did not recognize any dichotomy between body and mind.

The belief in Madhawacharya’s lie prevented even our great scholars from seeing the truth. Their misconception can get corrected by search for the true meaning of the word, ‘SUKHA’ in pre-Vedic India. (Both Dhammapada and the Gita clarify what SUKHA is). Then only our scholars can appreciate Kautilya’s giving high status to Lokayatas in Arthasastra.

To summarize, not Kula but “SILA” (values) was the foremost Dharmic factor in elite – making in pre-Vedic society. (The Buddha emphasized it in Brahmin varga in Dhammapada). ‘SILA’ consists of values like non-violence, Aparigraha (minimizing wants) lack of greed, lack of anger or hatred, fraternal relations with all living beings (Maitri). Surreptitiously Aryan community leaders added ‘Soucha’ (Purity pollution principle) to these values and this became the most popular and the most pervading value in Hindu society. Particularly upper caste men and women found in this principle an easy way to a Dharmic life and rigidly adhered to it. The Mahabharata contains many slokas which do not show ‘Soucha’ as a value defining Brahmin hood. There are many interpolated slokas which mention Soucha as one of the values. The Gita and Manusmurti accept ‘Soucha’ as a defining value of Dharma. Deceit was used to link ‘Soucha’ with Kula (caste). Some communities were declared as polluted because of birth and no scope was available for these people to raise their status by any individual effort. Very cleverly miscegenation was given as the cause of this abomination. Sometimes the polluted occupations like scavenging and removal of dead bodies were cited as causes (They were consequences, not causes). Surprisingly even the value of non-violence’ was utilized to condemn them. Irfan Habib referred to the non-violence principle being utilized to condemn the hunter -gatherer societies by the land- based peasant communities in his presidential speech in the History congress 1982. The Jains and the Buddhists not only condemned the hunter – gatherers, they also asked their monastic followers for not ploughing land in the name of non-violence principle. The Buddha did not forbid his followers from avoiding meat eating though his ultimate aim was nonviolence at every level. The Yogis of ancient India came from all communities including the hunter gatherers and never hated the hunter –gatherers for animal –killing or meat- eating.

Soucha (the purity pollution principle), the existence of Brahminic – Shasta-named polluted castes, the Karmic theory which emphasized rebirth: the trio in combination proved so lethal that they sealed the fates of many communities to Millennia – old social ostracism. In the Vedic era, the ritualist sacrificers were the purest people; in the Upanishadic age, purity resided in knowledge (There is nothing purer than knowledge- Gita). When devotion to the chosen deity Siva, Vishnu or Durga gained in popularity, a great reform rocked the whole of India. Many untouchables became revered saints. Hindu reformers in future can use devotion (Bhakti), modern discoveries of science which explode the myth of biological pollution and conversion to Nabayana Buddhism (the contribution of Ambedkar) to combat untouchability. With the caste system gathering strength in democratic India, fighting untouchability is an uphill task. Inter - caste marriages may gain momentum as Dalits improve their educational and financial status. Meanwhile all right thinking people should combine to prevent atrocities on Dalits anywhere in India. All efforts must be made to provide the poor Dalits with educational facilities and the minimum amount of land or other means of livelihood by the powers that be.

****

My Address:-

Bhagwat Prashad Rath,
Retired Lecturer,
Raith Colony, III RD Lane,
At/PO/Dist-Rayagada- 765002
Email- bagwat_prashad@rediffmail.com
www.samalochana1.blogspot.com
www.samalochana.blogsome.com
PH: - 08895860598
06856-235092

The Creation of Man by Tarun Patnaik

[The society and the individual are such utopian lovers, who having manufactured each other are exactly worthy of each other.]

Man is created through his social induction. His personality is created by the interplay and dynamics of circumstance, genetic inclinations, the choices he makes of free will and Reason he develops as he grows up. The free will whether a product of the chance of movements of neurons or because of the unconscious instinctive tendencies is an important factor in determining the individual’s personality. But Reason throughout the life plays an active role with the knowledge that man keeps on acquiring, in consciously shaping the personality. So man is never completely made. He keeps on learning and changing.

During man’s induction to society, the major “nature” that he learns or acquires are his tendencies, his likes and his dislikes.

What to like and what not to like is a question, man spends his life time in subconsciously answering. If to seek happiness, to tend to be pleased, to follow his will is man’s character, what his will is, what pleases him, and what gives him happiness is a major component of his personality, in fact it is the central core of his personality.

Society consciously contributes in the making of this personality through the process of education. Thus true education should tell man what his will/desire should be. And true learning should be to internalize an ideal will and desire. Learning continues throughout the life and Reason is the active shaper of this learning.

A child initially has only tendencies, no will, through the process of growing up, he moves through the confusion and crowd of options and choices and finally a fully developed personality has a well perceived and known will. Then man knows what gives him happiness. But this state is in a constant and slow flux for Reason acts on personality to make it ever changing and what gives one happiness also changes, as long as man is open to learning.

Much that we do not want man to be unhappy, we should teach a man to find his happiness in such a way that he does not make some one else unhappy while striving to attain his own happiness. For collective happiness the above becomes the first principle. So one should not find happiness in the other’s displeasure! When two happiness contest or compete, justice and sometimes negotiation should be resorted to, to find a meeting point.

Competition the most dear method for man’s progress in modern society creates few successes with many failures. Should not one then want to win or should there not be contests? Well, no, there should be both but one should place one’s happiness not on successes and failures but on self improvement. The competition should always be with one’s own self. And when there are competitions, when one looses and misses the prize, he should react with mild emotion and not despair. Since lack of ethics creates much unhappiness, we should seek happiness in a ethical way.

There is a good deal of literature on what happiness is, and how man finds it. According to David T. Lyken, 50% of one’s happiness depends on one’s genes. About 10-15% is the result of various measurable life circumstances, such as socio-economic status, marital status, health, income, sex and others. Remaining 40% is result of actions that individuals deliberately engage in to become happier. Extroverts may find happiness in human interaction, while philosophers may find happiness in intellectual contemplation.

Stefan Klein in his book The Science Of Happiness links the dynamics of neurobiological systems to the concepts and findings of positive psychology and social psychology. Human relations are consistently found to be the most important correlation with human happiness.

It is found that happiness can be contagious i.e. it can spread from one to another like a virus.

There are three traditional theories of happiness – hedonism theory, desire theory, and the objective list theory.

Hedonism holds that happiness is a matter of raw subjective feeling. This theory has its modern conceptual roots in Bentham’s utilitarianism, its contagion in Hollywood entertainment, its grossest manifestation in American consumerism.

Danny Kahneman a Nobel laureate in economics distinguishes between two assessments of life one by the experienced and second by the retrospective judge of pleasure. If at the end of one’s life one thinks life was great as by Wittgenstein’s last words: “Tell him it (life) was wonderful” uttered even after a life of negative emotion and even downright misery, can we really say such life was good when the person who experienced throughout his life did not feel much pleasure?

This takes us to the next theory – the desire theory, which holds that happiness is a matter of getting what one wants, irrespective of what it is that is wanted. A person living a most austere life or a person who sacrifices some of his most dear things, or one who struggles all his life for whatever, can be said to be happy since it is what they wanted to do with their life.

Objective list theory lodges happiness outside of feeling and onto a list of “truly valuable” things in the real world. It holds that happiness consists of a human life that achieves certain things from a list of worthwhile pursuits e.g. career accomplishments, freedom from disease and pain, material comforts, friendship, civic spirit, beauty, education, love, knowledge, fame, good conscience etc..

Consider the thousands of abandoned children living on the streets of the Angolan capital of Luanda. As the New York Times tells us, “dressed in rags, they spend nights in the sandy strip along the bay, and their days foraging for food through mounds of garbage.” It seems conceivable that their existence, consumed with meeting momentary needs, adventurous roving in gangs, casual sex, with little thought for tomorrow, might actually be subjectively “happy” from either the Hedonism or Desire theory perspective. But we may be reluctant to classify such an existence as “happy” and the Objective List theory tells us why. These children are deprived of many or most things that would go on anybody’s list of what is worthwhile in life.

Although we find Objective List’s shift to the objectively valuable a positive move, our principal objection to this theory is that some big part of how happy we judge a life to be must take feelings and desires (however shortsighted) into account.

Happiness is not a singular state of mind; through different processes we find different pleasant emotions or forms of happiness’ which is colorful with different shades of colors. For a rich and high quality of life, man should have enjoyed happiness as per all the three theories described above.

Some religions put this life as having significance only up to the extent that it is a preparation for an “After life.” But life is never a preparation for the “After life.” No present is or should be lived only for the alluring future. No future’s heaven has a right to make hell of the present. Present should be lived for its own self. No doubt present contributes to the future, but present of its own merit deserves attention. At the same time no present has a right to spoil the future. So we should look for balance, for harmony, for the co-existence of present and the future.

If victory promises glory and joy may the battle too promise sufficient entertainment! And our will and desire has a role to play in this. Because desire determines what should give us pleasure. Thus a harmony between the present and the future! If the end is glorious and worthy, the path should be no less intoxicating.

Is today’s man really happy? With the progress of science man has achieved much material comfort and possession. But has he become happier? In spite of physical comfort, modern world offers much mental stress and tension. How many people live life purposefully? And how many live because they have not died!

Man’s life can be assessed from the view point of two observers.

1. through his own eyes.

2. through the eyes of the society.

The verdict may coincide, it may also differ. A man posthumously famous for his social contribution may or may not have found happiness in his own life. Can we say he has lived a good life, worthy though it was!

While to seek happiness is the character or preference (through seeking self interest) of man, it is not his purpose and reason acts on this tendency to result in a motivation, that gives meaning or purpose to life. Purpose gives life meaning and motivation. A motivated life is also one which man finds much livable.

We find there are three main purposes of life worthy of man.

1. To find personal happiness

2. To contribute to the collective wellbeing or happiness

3. To contribute to the civilizational progress.

As we had noted earlier, through the process of education, man learns what to like and the teacher undertakes to educate the man. The first school is of course the home, and mother, the first teacher.

The teacher has great responsibilities, he is a representative of the society, manufacturing his pupil, he is also the path maker for his pupil, teaching him the ways of society. He teaches how to succeed, what to aim for and prepares his pupil for the struggle of life. For life is no less than a struggle for existence. The teacher in this dual role may find conflict. If he makes his pupil capable but lacking in virtue, the student may come out to become unworthy of the society.

Hitler’s teachers must be having this regret, that they could not teach him enough character for which Hitler made a name but a notorious one in history.

That to be free and happy man must internalize the civic virtues inside his character, the process of education while creating the citizen for the country, must make sure that the student learns the civic virtues. If man has not learned the civic virtues, he will be an unhappy citizen in his country. So the state which regulates education, must install such curriculum, faculty and educational institutions, such that man internalizes the requisite civic virtues.

But the individual while being manufactured by the society (State) has also the responsibility to manufacture the society through his creative, intellectual, and organizational powers. Thus education has also to make strong and wise individuals, who are capable of changing and reforming the systems for to change and evolve and get reformed is the basic character of any system.

The state while ensuring protection of rights of individuals must also ensure such basic conditions where a man can pursue his happiness. Freedom is a necessary condition but not sufficient for a happy life. One must have minimum living standards and the state has a responsibility to ensure that enough opportunities exist for all its citizens. The economic environment and the cultural environment are equally important along with the political environment. Culture where sports, art, music, public celebrations are promoted and encouraged will be more conducive for individual happiness. The economy should have sufficient job opportunities, a well to do wage rate, enough mobility along the income hierarchy and healthy working conditions. There should be freedom of enterprise. With all the difficulties with capitalism, even China and Russia have recognized freedom of enterprise.

The recent financial crisis started in the US; spread all over the world shows the risks and dangers of the connected globalized world. No nation in today’s world is isolated and can have the freedom of determining its economic policies without affecting the other nations. So each has a stake in the other! Thus it is only natural that each will demand a right to have a say in another’s internal economic policy. How to find a balance between national freedom and international obligation is a question for which world’s politicians are searching for answer.

The world today has many common and pressing issues which are in need of urgent and immediate solution. The education process should be geared up to create such individuals, who will save humanity from imminent destruction. May the individual find purpose in life that he will ensure shared happiness and eradicate poverty, make the world secure from current and future threats.



[Mr. Tarun Patnaik is an engineer by qualification passed out in 1993 from IIT Kharagpur, after a short stint in corporate for three odd years, resigned to study social science varying from philosophy and psychology to economics and management. Currently he is a resident in Rayagada, Orissa and engaged in free lance research.]

The essay was already published in the Radical Humanist.published here with permission from Mr Tarun