HINDU GODS AND US OUR GODDESSES AND THE HINDUS  

BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE DALITH BAHUJAN GODDESSES 

AND GODS AND THE HINDUS

                What is the relationship between the Hindu Gods and ourselves? Did the Hindu brahminical Gods treat us as part of their people, or even as legitimate devotees? Why did Hinduism create the images of many Gods as against the universal ethic of monotheism? Did brahminical polytheism work in the interest of Dalitbahujan masses or did it work in the interest of brahminical forces who are a small minority? Further, what is the relationship between the Dalitbahujan Goddesses and Gods and the Hindus? Did the Hindus respect these deities or worship them? What are the socioeconomic and cultural forms of the Dalitbahujan Goddesses and Gods? Since the majority of the people relate to the Dalitbahujan Goddesses and Gods, isn’t there a need to present their narratives? I shall discuss all these aspects in this chapter.

                Hinduism has a socioeconomic and cultural design that manipulates the consciousness of the Dalitbahujans systematically. It has created several institutions to sustain the hegemony of the brahminical forces. Through the ages it has done this by two methods: (i) creating a consent system which it maintains through various images of God and Goddesses, some of whom have been co-opted from the social base that it wanted to exploit; and (ii) when such a consent failed or lost its grip on the masses, it took recourse to violence. In fact, the violence has been Hinduism’s principal mechanism of control. That is the reason why many of the Hindu Gods were weapon-wielders in distinct contrast to the Gods of all other religions. No religion in the world has created such a variety of Gods who use both consent and violence to force the masses into submission. Thus, the relationship between the Hindu Gods and the Dalitbahujans has been that of the oppressors and oppressed, the manipulator and the manipulated. Of course, one of the ‘merits’ of Hinduism has been that it addressed both the mind and the body of the oppressed.

                Brahminical  theoreticians have constructed their own theory of consciousness with a specific notion that the majority (bahujan) consciousness is confined to one specific activity and that consciousness has to be constantly monitored inorder to arrests its further growth. If a consciousness is manipulated to become and remain the slave of another consciousness, someday or the other it will rebel. These revolts are mostly suppressed. All religions have worked out strategies to manipulate and contain such revolts by teaching the slaves a so-called divine morality. But no religion has succeeded in suppressing the slaves for ever.

                Other religions admitted slaves into their fold, although they suppressed them in the political and economic domains. But the Dalitbahujans never became part of Hinduism.

                Hinduism differs from other religions even in terms of the way it has structured its Gods and Goddesses. All the Gods and Goddesses are institutionalized, modified, modified and contextualized in a most brazen anti-Dalitbahujan mode. Hinduism has been claiming that the Dalitbahujans are Hindus, but at the same time their very Gods are openly against them. As a result, this religion,  from its very inception, has a fascist nature, which can be experienced  and understood only by the Dalitbahujans, not by Brahmins who regard the manipulation and exploitation as systemic and not as part of their own individual consciousness. But the reality is that every ‘upper’ caste person takes part in that exploitation and manipulation and contributes towards the creation and perpetuation of such cultures in the Indian context. The creation and perpetuation of Hindu Gods is a major achievement of this culture.

THE BRAHMINICAL GODS AND GODDESSES

                The head of the brahminical Gods, Indra, is known as the Deevatideeva.  He is the original Aryan leader who led the mass extermination of the Indus valley based Adi-Dravidans, who were also Adi-Dalitbahuans. Brahmins consider him a hero because he killed hundreds and thousands of Dalitbahujans at that time. After conquering the Dalitbahujan, he established a pastoral Aryan kingdom. In this kingdom, he did not organize people into production, he merely established a big harem. Enjoying the pleasures of that harem and dancing and drinking were his main tasks. Ramba, Urvashi, Tilothama who  are again and again symbolized as representing Hindu beauty and Hindu ideals of service were part of his harem. He might have also been a seducer of many Dalitbahujan women which is probably why brahminical literature constructs him as a powerful Kaamaabhimaani  (one who enjoys sex) hero. But the most important aspect is that he was the main political leader of the Aryans. It was he who led them to political victory. This leader was first and foremost a killer and an exploiter of Dalitbahujans.

BRAHMA AND SARASWATHI

                The most important Hindu God—the first of the three murthies—is Brahmas. Physically Brahma is represented as a light brown-skinned Aryan. He bears the name of Brahma, which means wisdom. Sometimes he is shown as a person who has four hands, sometimes as one who has only two hands. This God of wisdom is armed with weapons to attack his enemies—the Dalitbahujans. He was the one who worked out the entire strategy of war designed to defeat the Adi-Dalitbahujans. It was he who was responsible for the reconstruction of brahminical society. The Bramins have worked out the social divisions of caste by claiming that they were born from his head, Kshatriyas from his chest, Vaisyas from his thighs and Sudras from his feet. Such an explanation gave a divine justification for the four classes—which have come to be known as the four varnas.  Subsequently these classes-particularly the Sudra-slave class—were divided into further castes so that class revolt could be curbed once and for all. Brahminical theoreticians—Kautilya, Manu, Vedavyasa and Valmiki—all worked out mechanisms that structured these castes/classes basically in the interest of the brahminical forces. As we have seen in earlier chapters, it is because of this ideological hegemony that the brahminical order-in philosophy, economy and politics—could be maintained from ancient times to the present age of post-colonial capitalism.

                ‘Brahma’ wife is known as Saraswathi, which also means learning. The construction of the Brahma-Saraswathi relationship takes place strictly within the philosophical bounds of patriarchy.  Brahma himself is shown as the source of wisdom in the Vedas, the early Brahmin writings, which were designed to subordinate the native masses of India. The Vedas themselves express the mixed feelings of crude Brahminism. But since they were written by the Brahmins (i.e., by the early literate Aryans), the texts go against Dalitbahujans. In fact, they are anti-Dalitbahujan texts. The absurdity of Brahmin patriarchy is clear in these texts The source of education, Saraswathi, did not write any book as the Brahmins never allowed women to write their texts. Nowhere does she speak even about the need to give education to women. How is it that the source of education is herself an illiterate woman?  This is diabolism of the highest order. Brahminism never allowed women to be educated. The first woman who worked to provide education for all women is Savithribai Phule, wife of Mahatma Phule, in the mid-nineteenth century. To our Dalitbahujan mind, there is no way in which Saraswathi can be compared to Savithribai Phule. In Savithribai Phule one finds real feminist assertion. She took up independent positions and even rejected several suggestions made by Jyotirao Phule. Saraswathi, the Goddess, never did that. Her husband, Brahma, is a Brahmin in all respects—in colour, in costumes—and also in the alienation from all productive work. He was responsible for manipulating the producers—the Dalitbahujans—into becoming slaves of his caste/class. Whenever the need arose he never hesitated to initiate a bloody war against the Dalitbahujans masses.

                Leave alone the ancient and medieval periods, even in the twentieth century, Hindutva attempts to seduce us into accept this first enemy of Dalitbahujans as our prime deity. The manipulator of knowledge is being projected as knowledge itself. But there are two kinds of knowledge: (i) the oppressor’s knowledge and (ii) the knowledge of the oppressed. Brahma’s knowledge is the oppressor’s knowledge. The Dalitbahujans have their own knowledge, reflected in several of the ideas of the Charvakas (Dalitbahujan materialists) of the ancient period. The ancient Brahmins hegemonized their knowledge and marginalized the knowledge of the Dalitbahujan Charvakas, using the image of Brahma. Brahma, thus represented the Brahmin patriarchs, and Saraswathi represented the Brahmin women who had been turned into sexual objects.

VISHNU AND LAKSHMI

The second God who is said to have played a predominant brahminical role, yuga after yuga, is Vishnu. Why is Vishnu said to have been a blue-skinned God? The reason is quite obvious. He is the projection of an association between the Brahmins and the Kshatriyas. This godhead might have been created at a time when the Kshatriyas (a hybride caste that might perhaps have emerged in cross-breeding between white-skinned Aryans and dark-skinned Dravidian Dalitbahujans) were in revolt against the Brahmins. Jainism and Buddhism were perhaps the last of such revolts. Vishnu is said to be the upholder and preserver of allt he principles that Brahma evolved. He is assigned the task of preserving and expanding Brahmin dharma. He wields the vishnuchakram,  an extremely dangerous weapon, designed to injure all those who rebel against the Brahmins. He is supposed to be merciless in suppressing revolts. Interestingly, he is shown sleeping on a snake which suggests his wickedness more than it does his humanism. For an average Dalitbahujan the snake symbolizes evil, not virtue. He is monogamous as he is married to Lakshmi. The relationship between Lakshmi and Vishnu is no different from that between Brahma and Saraswathi. Lakshmi is supposed to aid Vishnu in his anti-Dalitbahujan designs. Her role is very clear: she must keep pressing the feet of Vishnu as he lies cogitating about the prosperity of Brahmins and the destruction of the Dalitbahujans. She is supposed to procure wealth and victory for the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the Vaisyas. But she must for the Brahmins, the Kshatriyas and the Vaisyas. If she comes to know that a Dalitbahujan man or woman has acquired wealth or is revolting against the caste system, she is required to bring that to the notice of Vishnu who will go and exterminate such persons.

                Brahminism is so diabolical that even Brahmin and Kshatriya women are assigned significant roles that keep the Dalitbahujans suppressed. Saraswathi must see to it that the Dalitbahujans do not become literate and ensure that they can never understand the brahminical methods of manipulation. Lakshmi is assigned the role of alienating Dalitbahujans from private property: land, gold and other metals. In other words, the Brahmin woman is supposed to see that the Dalitbahujans are denied the right to education and the Kshatriya woman is assigned the duty of denying the right to property to Dalitbahujans. These kinds of roles for ‘upper’ caste women have played an important part in assimilating them into Brahminism—but as unequal partners. In fact, as Phule repeatedly said, Brahmins were so cunning that they have assigned to Lakshmi the role of being the source of wealth and property while all Brahmin women are denied the right to property. As in the case of Saraswathi, Lakshmi, the source of wealth, is herself a poor dependent.

                Assigning these roles to woman has had a double-edged function. Within the caste, gender roles are strictly defined but even the oppressed gender is assimilated into the opposition against the other caste/class. Brahmin and Kshatriya men play the role of producing knowledge that lies outside the domain of production, and through which the enemies of brahminical consciousness are controlled. As a result, Dalitbahujan consciousness itself is made to consent to its oppression. If the consent system is broken, the Kshatriya God—Vishnu—is always vigilant to suppress the offenders by using violence. By creating such images of the Gods and Goddesses—Indra, Brahma, Saraswathi, Vishnu, Lakshmi—the possibility of breaking the brahminical system was arrested from several aspects: knowledge, wealth and war being predominant.

                It is not very clear why Vishnu and not Brahma was chosen to be reincarnated in different forms at different times to suppress Dalitbahujan assertion. Perhaps it was because the Kshatriyas already wielded political power, but it was important to make the Kshatriya kings acquiesce in their subordination to the Brahmins. If such a message emerges from the Kshatriya God and Goddesses themselves, building up consent from the Kshatriyas becomes easier. To a large extent that purpose was also served because through the message of Vishnu and Lakshmi the Brahmins ensured their philosophical and ideological hegemony even over the Kshatriyas, and through the message of Lakshmi even while being out of responsible positions of running the state or conducting wars, the Brahmins could acquire wealth for the mere asking. More important, the Dalitbahujans were suppressed year after year, century after century and yuga and yuga.

SHIVA AND PARVATHI

The third among the trimurthies, the one who is least powerful, and who is easily fooled, is Shiva or Maheswara. In terms of colour and costume he neither resembles Brahma and the Brahmins nor does he resemble Vishnu and the Kshatriyas. He is dark-skinned and dressed like a tribal. Though this God is associated with Brahma and Vishnu, he is assigned a third position and he does not have as defined a role as Brahma and Vishnu do. Though he is also powerful and wields the trishula  as his weapon, basically he plays the subordinate role to Brahma and Vishnu. His behaviour is a little different from that of the Brahmin and the Kshatriya Gods. He loves dancing and gets himself into all sorts of difficulties from which he needs to be rescued by Brahma and Vishnua. The story of Bhasmasura is a good example of Shiva’s dependence on Vishnu.

                His wife, Parvathi, or Gauri as she is also called, also does not have as specific a role as Saraswathi or Lakshmi. She joins her husband in many of his activities. They dance and roam around. But Parvathi, unlike Saraswathi and Lakshmi, question many of the activities of her husband. She also plays certain roles which do not, strictly speaking, fall within the domain of ritual Hinduism. Perhaps this couple comes from a tribal origin. On the whole, however, Parvathi supports Saraswathi and Lakshmi in their anti-Dalitbahujan activities. The question is, then, for what purpose was the image of Shankara and Parvathi constructed? To my mind there is a definite purpose in these images. The images of Brahma, Vishnu, Saraswathi and Lakshmi were enough to control the minds of those Dalitbahujans, Vaisyas and Kshatriyas who have already come into the grip of brahminical civil society. These four figures  were adequate for ensuring Dalitbahujan consent or, when necessary, suppression. This was because, by large, the theory of karma had already been universalized among them, although, as I said in earlier chapters, these Gods were not at all known to the Dalitbahujans. To the extent that they were known, the concept of karma has created an ideological preserve of consent, and worked to ensure that the Dalitbahujans did nothing to challenge their hegemony.

                What had become problematic and unmanageable, as far as the tribal population was concerned was that slowly but surely they were being pulled into brahminical civil society. However, they did not identify with Brahma and Vishnu, who looked different from them. These Gods were not adequate for creating a consent base among the tribals. So the Brahmins constructed these two images as God and Goddess who were tribals but had accepted the hegemony of brahminism in all spheres, certainly the creation of the images of Shiva and Parvathi was instrumental in creating a consent base among the tribals because Shiva propagates Brahminism and  forces people to accept the authority of the Brahmins by violence. These two images were successfully used to subdue the tribals. This is a part of the brahminical theory and practice of ‘co-optation.’.

THE AVATARA GODSPOST-COLONIAL UNIVERSITIES

Though the trimurthies and their wives had achieved the main objective of the Brahmins, Dalitbahujan revolts continued to take place. As a result, Brahmins went on creating more and more God and Goddess images through the technique of avataras.  From among the later avatara Gods and Goddesses, Vamana, Krishna, Rama and Sita are important. Though Phule and Ambedkar did built up a ‘Sudra’ critique of some of these avataras, it is important to extend this analysis in the light of post-colonial Hindutva. Of the ten so-called avataras of Vishnu, the Buddha is an obvious co-optation. Even an average, urban-educated Indian knows this and therefore, I do not need to analyse the question of the Buddha.

VAMANA

Of the remaining avataras, three are important for our purpose—Vamana, Krishna and Rama. Like many historians, I am also of the opinion that the Ramayana was written after the Mahabharatha.  After Brahma, Vamana is the only God who was said to have been born as a Brahmin. In setting up the story of the origin of this God the Brahmins have not been so intelligent. The narrative depicts Vamana as being incarnated to kill the Dalitbahujan king, Bali Chakravarthi, who did not believe in Hindu Brahmanism and worked to establish a casteless society. Upset by bali’s moves, the Brahmins of the area projected a dwarf Brahmin boys as the incarnation of Vishnu. A great deal of propaganda was done about the capacities of Vamana around that area to enthuse confidence among Brahmins and intimidate the Dalitbahujans. They also announced that on a particular day Vamana would visit Bali. They terrified the Dalitbahujan masses and also bali with this very propaganda. One fine morning all the Brahmins of the area went to Bali’s place among with Vamana. Though Bali was told by his teacher Shukrachary athat this dwarf was only a disguised Brahmin, Bali was tempted to believe that he was God. The Brahmins managed to pour acid in Shukracharya’s eyes and Bali was rendered supportless.

                Vamana asks Bali for three varas (gifts). Bali agrees. Vamana asks for three footspans of land. Without realizing its implications, Bali agrees. Then Vamana uses his brahminical trick. He goes up to the top of the building and points one foot towards the sky and declares that the whole of the sky is covered by the foot. Then he points another foot towards the earth and says it covered the whole earth. The protests of Bali that such claims are lies are shouted down by the Brahmins around. Vamana then descends from the building and asks for a place for the third foot. Before Bali recovers from the shock of godly lies, Vamana claims that since there was no land to put his third foot he will put it on Bali’s head. He breaks Bali’s head by stamping on him with his iron-studded footwear. Thus, the Dalitbahujan kingdom was conquered by Hindu treachery and the most humanitarian Baliraja was murdered. Phule in all his writings speaks of the injustice done to Bali by the Brahmins and asks the Dalibahujans to establish an egalitarian society such as the one in which Bali was the leader. Phule also exposes the Brahmins’ inhuman treachery.

KRISHNA

Who is Krishna? Why did the Brahmins create such a God? Why is it that he was said to have been brought up by a Yadava family, though he was born a Kshatriya? Suddenly, and only with regard to Krishna (all other Gods and Goddesses are Brahmins and Kshatriyas), why is such a compromise made? Even Karna who was said to have been brought up in a Dalitbahujan family, though he was born a Kshatriya, is condemned, but not Krishna whose life-story has a similar caste narrative. The accounts of his childhood mischief in cowherd houses, the stories of his promiscuous relationships, and his other nefarious activities—with Radha and other Yadava women—are all projected as divine. Krishna is represented as the guru, leader and war strategist for minority (Pandava) dharma against the majority (Kaurava) dharma. Finally it is the same Krishna who is said to have authored the most brahminical text—the Bhagavad Gita – which  became the sacred text of the Hindus, just as the bible is the sacred text of the Christians, and the Korans of the Muslims. At a time when the Sudras had no right to education,  how did a Yadava write the Gita? How did a Yadava writer not provide any social space for Yadavas themselves, leave alone the other Dalitbahujans? There is a need for deliberation on all these questions.

                It must be remembered that the epicenter of Brahmin, Kshatriya and Dalitbahujan wars was the present Uttar Pradesh and Bihar region. The yadavas are the single largest caste in the area. Many revolts against Brahmin-Kshatriyas in these regions were led by them. On several occasions the Yadava community was brutally suppressed along with other Dalitbahujans. But the revolt they led around the period of the Mahabharatha  seems to have been so tremendous, that Brahmin-Kshatriya forces felt that the consent system that they had built among the lower castes was radically threatened. Once the consent system that sustains the hegemony of a caste/class breaks, it cannot be regained through any number of wars. Take for example, revolts of Dalitbahujans in this heartland of Brahminism around the Mandal struggle as well as the anti-Ramarajya struggle in 1990-1993. The Yadvas of the area took the lead in this struggle. Gradually the alliance between the Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes was worked out, mainly by the Yadavas. In this struggle, the role of B.P. Mandal, a Yadava (who wrote the Mandal Report), Mulayam Singh Yadav and Laloo  Prasad  Yadav who are for Mandal Raj and are against Ramarajya are well known. This happened because the Yadavas took the lead in breaking the consent structure of the Hindu-brahminical hegemony. As against this the brahminical BJP co-opted two leaders from the Lodha caste-Kalyan Singh and Uma Bharathi. This is done only to ensure that the Brahmin hegemony can be sustained by capturing political power through elections. Though Kalyan Singh might have been made the Chief Minister the real power remained with the Brahmin pandits. This is an example of modern co-optation.

                The Hindu-brahminical forces, however, broke the alliance between the SCs and the OBCs by working out much more dangerous strategies of co-optation. The Bharatiya Janata party, as a part of this strategy, extended its support to Mayawati, a woman leader of the Bahujan Samaj Party. She is an excellent organizer and a  powerful orator. The BJP wanted to help her to remove Mulayam Singh Yadav from the Chief Ministership. Thus, in July 1995 the BJP supported her to become the Chief Minister. Once again the Yadavas were projected as a most dangerous people. The BJP Made a serious attempt to break the alliance between the OBCs led by the Yadavas and the SCs by appearing to be willing to co-opt the SCs who had suffered most at the hands of Brahminism. Of course, they wanted to make this co-optation without altering the SCs socioeconomic and political position.

                Mayawati and Kanshi Ram, the president of the BSP, saw through the game. They fought the brahminical designs over the Mathura temple and Masjid issue after Mayawati was installed as Chief Minister. The BSP leaders also saw through the brahminical opposition to installing Periyar Ramasamy Naiker’s statue in Lucknow. It was Periyar, after all, who had exposed the anti-Dalitbahujan nature of the Hindu Gods more than anybody else. The BSP organized several Periyar melas. As Chamars, Mayawati and Kanshi Ram have already withstood attempts at co-optations. This does not mean that Brahminism will give up its co-optation strategies. As it has already succeeded in breaking the alliance between the SCs and the OBCs, it will keep trying to defeat the Dalitbahujans. Through all these attempts contemporary Brahminism is searching for Dalitbahujans who are willing to be projected to play its role and enable the caste system to survive.

                Similarly, even in period of the Mahabharatha,  the Brahmins needed to project a person who could rebuild a consent system to contain the Yada revolts. The Brahmins created an image of one who was said to have been born and brought up among the Yadavas themselves, but they had to ensure that it would not result in having to include the entire Yadava community as had happened in the case of the Kshatriyas. If this happened, it would result in expanding the number and scope of brahminical castes. That itself would endanger the hegemony of the Brahmin-Kshatriyas. In order to overcome this problem they worked out the strategy of creating a Krishna (dark blue in colour) who was said to have been born in a Kshatriya family and brought up in a Yadava family. But the narrative is cleverly manipulated. The young Krishna grows up in Yadava culture, but the political Krishna never identifies himself with Yadava culture. His political role is that of a Kshatriya, defending brahminical dharma.

                In no single incident did he stand by the Dalitbahujans. It did not matter whether his beloved was a Yadava-Radha or whether the other gopikas were Yadavas. All his legal wives were Kshatriya women. That fitted very well into the brahminical  patriarchal culture of having sexual relations with Dalitbahujan women but marrying only women of their own caste. Krishna is the only avatara who is presented as a believer in polygamy. He had eight wives and all of them were Kshatriya women. He is represented as having assimilated some aspects of Dalitbahujan (Yadava) culture—and that part of his character is attributed to his ‘Dalitness’. All his brahminical characteristics are attributed to his ‘Kshatriyaness’. With Krishna’s avatara the Brahmins played their politics extremely well.

                The crux lies in Krishna’s role in building a strong consent system that drew in all the Dalitbahujans to cement Brahminism. The Mahabharatha  narrative itself was built on a very strong Kautilyan imagination. That seems to have been a period when the majority, that is, the Bahujans, revolted against the minority to acquire control of land. The fight was between the minority Pandavas (Brahmins, Kshatriyas and Vaisyas were always a minority—they constitute only 15 percent of the population) and the majority Kauravas. There were five Pandavas and a hundred Kauravas. The hundred Kauravas stood against brahminical dharma and represented Dalitbahujans, the majority; whereas the five Pandavas stood for brahminical dharma and represented the brahminical minority. In the fight for land (and for the kingdom) Krishna stands by the minority. Not only that, he plans the whole strategy of the minority war against the majority and uses all the unscrupulous brahminical tricks to defeat the majority.

                In this war Karna and Krishna represent two different values. karna, though born to a Kshatriya woman, Kunti, owns up to Dalitbahujan culture and tradition as he was brought up in a Dalitbahujan family, whereas Krishna, who was brought up by Yadavas, consciously owns up to the Kshatriya culture tradition. Even in the war Karna represents the majority whereas, Krishna represents the minority. Krishna was also a weapon-wielding God: he wields a chakram, he is also the yuddha radhasarathi  (chariot driver) of the minority. All the skills of Kautilyan state craft were exhibited by Krishna in the battlefield. For him the end justifies the means and war resolves all contradictions. In defence of minority dharma he justifies violence, brutality and treachery. Karna was killed only through treachery.

                In the story of his raayabhaaram  (ambassadorship) it was very clear that he failed to win the majority. Through the brahminical mechanism of consent creation. The majority  were not willing to give up the land they had acquired through sweat and blood. Finally Krishna resorts to violence. Some of the members of his camp (like Arjuna) were not willing to indulge in such bloody violence but Krishna forces them to kill anyone—guilty or otherwise—from the majority camp, as they had rebelled against brahminical dharma. It was in defence of brahminical ideology that he taught, as is evident in the Gita, the theory of violence, varnadharma and karma. This is the reason why Krishna was so acceptable to brahminical forces. After the defeat of the majority in the struggle for land the Gita was used to create a much stronger consent system to ensure that no serious revolts emerged from the Dalitbahujan social base. Whenever such attempts were made, either by Yadavas or by other Dalit forces, Krishna’s Gita was effectively used to manipulate them into submission. During the freedom struggle the Hindu brahminical forces, particularly Gandhi, propagated the Gita message to build a modern consent system for the continued maintenance of brahminical hegemony in the era of capitalism and democracy.

RAMA AND SITA

The Brahmins did not mince words when they created the last and the most powerful epic images of the powerful monogamous male and female. Both Rama and Sita were said to have been born in Kshatriya families. Rama is a blue-skinned Kshatriya avatara of Vishnu, and Sita is a pale-complexioned avatara of Lakshmi. Why did the Brahmins create these images by writing the Ramayana  and what did they expect to achieve through this epic narrative?

                In North India, after the Dalitbahujan revolts were suppressed, both through consent and through war, the Dalitbahujans of that area were completely subdued. Varnadharma theory and practice became part of mass consciousness. Even the Jain and Buddhist schools that were antagonistic to Brahmin ideology were completely suppressed. Through the establishment of the Kautilyan state (economic and political) Manu’s laws were implemented systematically. Brahmins ruled the roost in the system and even Kshatriya assertion no longer continued with the creation of the image of Krishna and after the writing of the Gita. The consent system was so total that no one could raise a finger against the Brahmins. All sections of the population in North India had been subjugated to such an extent that they had lost confidence in themselves and had given up all hope of change.

                The Brahmins thought that this was the right time to expand their hegemony to South India, where the Dalitbahujans were ruling. The kingdoms of Tataki, Shambuka, Vali and Ravana were all Dalitbahujan kingdoms. Some Brahmins claim that Ravana was also a Brahmin. This is nonsense. Ravana was a powerful Dravida Dalitbahujan ruler. He was also a militant Shaivaite. Ravana tried to separate Shaivism from Brahminism and to create an autonomous space for Dalitbahujan Shaivism, which is what Basava finally managed to some extent. He established a powerful kingdom with its capital in Sri Lanka so that he could withstand brahminical aggression. The North Indian Brahmins decided that at a time when their dominance was total in the North, the South Indian Dalitbahujan kingdoms must be defeated and the hold of Brahminism extended. Therefore, they planned an aggression on the Dalitbahujan South. The rishis played a very crucial role in deciding on what steps Rama should take. Vishwamitra and Vasista were the driving forces in the Ramayana  narrative. They are known as Rama’s kula gurus,  people whose words must be respected under any circumstance.

                Apart from extending the hold of Brahminism to the South, the Ramayana  narrative is also a means of subordinating women by establish role models for them. It asserts that a wife must be subordinate to her husband, irrespective of the caste/class nature of the man; that no woman ought to be a ruler since such exercise of political power by women within the subcontinent (even among Dalitbahujans) might influence the brahminical Aryans, who had by then established a strong patriarchal system. Northern Brahminism decided to place gender roles hierarchically into brahminical patriarchy even in Sought India. The later Brahmins were not at all pleased about the ‘unbrahminical’ relationships that were made respectable by Draupadi and Radha. Draupadi became a public figure though she had five husbands and Radhas was said to have had relations with Krishna, though she was not married to him. It is surprising that Hindus give the name Radha to their female children but not of Draupadi. That is because Draupadi had five husbands. Hindus have no disrespect for a man like Krishna who had eight wives but have no respect for Draupadi who had five husbands. Hinduism respects polygamy but not polyandry. In the period of the Ramayana, Hinduism was settling down in patriarchal monogamy. So they decided to institutionalize patriarchal monogamy even among the Dravida Dalitbahujans, because the Dravid region still retained elements of a strong matriarchal tradition. The autonomy of men and women was systemic among South Indian masses. This is clear from the Goddess-centered rituals that are universally in vogue in South India even today.

                The Ramayana is an ancient account of the aggression aimed at braminizing the Dalitbahujan society of South India, turning it into a brahminizing patriarchy. With this objective the Brahmin rishies came along with Rama, Sita and Lakshmana, attacked the tribal oligarchies and destabilized several independent Dalitbahujan states. Tataki, the famous Dalitbahujans woman, was killed and her state was brought under Brahminism. Then the famous Shambuka was killed, and his kingdom usurped. The major opposition to Rama’s aggression came from the ruler of Kishkinda, a tribal king called Vali. The Brahmins befriended Vali’s brother Sugreeva and his nephew Anjaneya and, aided by their treachery, killed the powerful Vali. When a beautiful Dalitbahujan woman, Shurpanaka, wanted to marry Rama, the latter said she  should ask Lakshmana. But Lakshmana in response cut off her nose and her earlobes. This incident enraged her brother Ravana. He kidnapped Sita to teach Rama a lesson. Of course Rama uses this incident to mobilize the same tribal Dalitbahujans to attack Sri Lanka. Somehow he reaches Sri Lanka and kills Ravana. With the killing of Ravana the Dalitbahujans of South India were conquered by the brahminical Aryans. In fact, what was worse, was after the defeat of Ravana many Brahmin rishies migrated from the North to the whole of South India, which had basically been a casteless society. It was turned into a caste-based society and the Brahmins established their ideological hegemony over the whole of South India.

                Thus, in South India, Brahminism was imposed from above. There were considerable resistance to it in civil society which did not accept or practise the brahminical caste system for a long time. Though South Indian Brahmins have tried to institutionalize the caste system, using both coercion and consent, revolts against the system remained part of the history of South India. Anti-Brahmin movement slike the Basava movement (in the thirteenth century) the Vemana movement and the Veerabrahma movement (both in the seventeenth century), the Jyotirao Phule movement, the Narayanaguru movement, the DMK movement, Ambedkar’s movement and Periyar’s movement finally resulted in the establishment of the Dravida Munnetra state in Tamil nadu (within the Indian Union). All this a part of South Indian non-Brahmin consciousness that gradually extended to the North in post-colonial India. The establishment of the Bahujan Samaj party in the North in 1984 is an extension of the anti-Brahmin politico-cultural tradition of the South to the North.

                As I have argued earlier, in addition to the anti-Brahmin micromovements there were also several cultural traditions in civil society which were antithetical to the brahminical tradition, cultural ethos and economic system. As a result, the brahminical tradition remained only a surface system in the South. In fact, if in North India, brahminical Hinduism kept Muslim culture confined to the converts and to the state institutions, not allowing it into civil society, in South India the Dalitbahujan masses did the same to Brahminism. At one level the Brahmin priest kept himself in touch with the Dalitbahujan masses on certain occasion like marriages and deaths and extracted money, food materials, cows and land in theform of dakshina. But at another level, Dalitbahujans retained their cultural ethos, their economic notions of life, and their political and scientific tempers which were distinct.

DALITBAHUJAN GODDESSES AND GODS

There are several images of Goddesses/Gods, which have caste specificities, or regional specificities but there is a basic characteristic that they hold in common in terms of the contexts and the consciousness they give rise to. The consciousness built around Dalitbahujan Goddess/God images is rooted in production processes. Though the Dalitbahujan imagination has played a role in institutionalizing these images it is also important that these images find their center in human existence and in the relations between productive forces and nature.