Brahmin and Mullah

Reply to Acheron2 # 105

It seems to me that the fundamentalist response, in any culture or religion, is a reactionary one spearheaded by individuals and groups threatened by change because (1) they can’t control its outcomes to their own continued benefit, (and) often because (2) they don’t entirely understand it.

The subcontinent did not experience “fundamentalist religion” for many years, because the way ordinary people perceived themselves and their societies had not fundamentally changed for centuries. We were a feudal, static society regardless of the religion, ethnicity or language of our rulers. As soon as social change accelerated (along with social uncertainty), fundamentalist religious movements and identities – both Hindu and Muslim - gained strength. (This is also when secular fundamentalism gained strength - the nationalist and communist movements.)

Why? Because these movements provide predigested answers. They also ALL refer to a Golden Age (for Muslims perhaps the time of the Prophet, for Hindus perhaps Ram Rajya) when life was lived according to these answers. The implications are that if we all lived as they did during the Golden Age all our questions would be answered, and that if we were virtuous and happy once we could be again - so long as we all followed the rules expounded by whichever movement happened to be preaching at the time. Fundamentalism purports to provide simplicity when life is not simple. It claims to work so long as people do not ask questions.

Following this logic “fundamentalist religious movements” have understandably cropped up across the world for authentically indigenous reasons. The Golden Age they refer to varies, of course, according to the tradition they find themselves in. Muslims naturally think of the time of the Prophet, and by extension, the Middle East. Hindus of Ram Rajya, and Ancient India. In other paradigms people think of other places – for example Rastafarianism refers to Ethiopia, the only part of Africa not thoroughly colonised by Europe. Let’s not even start on the Crusades and Catholic Europe`s fixation on Earthly Jerusalem. More prosaically, the civil religion Mussolini ascribed to, aka fascism, harked back to a certain empire centred in Rome (And diaspora Judaism referred/refers to the Promised Land. A worrying actual outcome for other fundamentalists to ponder, but let those that have eyes to see....)

So I don’t think that self styled “radical Islam” (actually profoundly reactionary, but let it go) in the subcontinent is an imported phenomenon. Of course it refers to histories and events elsewhere in the world – we are all connected – but it occurs for subcontinental reasons. If Indian and Pakistani workers abroad bring back a “Saudi” version of Islam it’s not just because they were passingly exposed to it and picked it up like a case of the ‘flu. It’s because of a popular subcontinental perception that the Saudi version is more authentic. (Well that’s where Mecca Medina are, right?) And if it’s taken up on the subcontinent, it’s because it addresses subcontinental social uncertainties and needs. If it was soooo alien to how people think in India and Pakistan, nobody would pay it any attention. If (as I suspect) you feel that so called “radical religion” is not a good idea, calling it a dutty phorin impote doesn’t really counter it. You have to put forward something which meets the needs it does in a better way. (…er….ahem…I, of course, have made no such claim and hence do not feel bound to profer anything of the sort…blush, blush…cough….)

I’m afraid we must agree to disagree on the cultural perception of religion in the subcontinent thing. You’ve pointed out that Hinduism and Islam have different “forbidden things” (beef on one hand, pork and wine on the other) and different liturgical languages (Sanskrit and Arabic). Does the fact that these forbidden things and liturgical languages are different mean that Hindus and Muslims on the subcontinent have different mentalities, despite their many other cultural similarities? Or does the fact that Hindus and Muslims on the subcontinent both have “forbidden things” and liturgical languages, in addition to all their other cultural similarities, result in their having similar, if not identical, mentalities? Hmmmmm? Anyway, thank you for your response, and I hope that this makes my questions/disagreements understandable. For the rest of you at Chowk (assuming you have made it this far) I apologise for the length of my posting and will try to be less verbose in future.

Ref: Klutz 117

I just did a web search for the etymology of Hind. An Urdu dictionary on the web (address below) gave the meaning of Hind as: Hindustan, Bhaarath, India.

(Dictionary at:

http://www.rajiv.org/iu/urdudic.html)

I believe that Hind is the way incoming people at that time pronounced Indus. So Hindustan is actually named after a river now found in Pakistan. And Hindi is not much spoken near the Indus. And not many Hindus at all are found near the Indus. If it makes you feel better, Urdu was at one time referred to as Hindavi. What is one to think?

Speaking of names, is Pakistan only for ``pure`` people? What about the rest of you?

MATRILINEAL SYSTEM,

As far as I know, this system is not practiced. Legally, the matrilineal system in terms of inheritance is abolished by the hindu succession act of 1950 something, which basically states that all children including girls have equal right to the property of the mother and father, and a will that doest meet the above crteria can be challenged.

We are essentially talking about what it was. Namboodiris were the land owners, the eldest married a namboodiri woman, but could also have `sambadam`, laison with other nair women. The namboodiris were free to go to other lower castes as well, it was considered a great honour to rope in a namboodiri, but they usually didnot. A namboodiri could have as many as he liked. He only went to the nairs house only at dusk, the woman was supposed to wait with a lamp at the dusk time. During the day, he stayed in his `tharawad`, or family house looking after land.

Many nambiidiri women didnot get married, but were looked after by the married sister. Lack of having a male child was addressed by marrying more namboodiri women. In some cases of childlessness, the younger brother assumed the lead role.

The Nair women, because there was no full time man in the house relied on the brother, and that is how the `mama` became surrogate father.

The essential aspect of all this is that the brhmins controlled the land. A typical brahmin house is a marvelous structure, house all roud, two stories with a courtyard in the centre. The `nalukettu`, only a very few are left in dilapilated condition.

A friend on mine a few years ago, demolished the nalukettu in kerala, and used the wood to make a beautiful house in Bagalore.

The hindu succession act, the land cieling act by the marxists, the education and lack of interest of the young namboodiris to lead a rural life lead to the devatation of the namboodiris.

Today, their average income will not be much higher than the average for the state. Most of the namboodiris have moved with their children to the cities, a very few eke out a living doing temple service, which in kerala is a governement job, with some tips from the devotees.

A structure may be a thousand years old was demolished in about fifty years. No one, including the namboodiris I know dont complain about, so is the power of education and a sense of justice.

regards

jayaprakash.

http://india_resource.tripod.com/social.htm

-Arun Gupta

A tale of two views: The Taj for Musharraf, gardens for Vajpayee

General’s 3,000-square-feet Kohinoor suite has original Mughal works including one showing Aurangzeb being greeted at Lahore

Nirmala Ganapathy

Agra, July 4: IF a room with a view makes a difference, then you can expect great things from Pakistan President General Pervez Musharraf. Walk into the Kohinoor suite on the fifth floor of the Oberoi group’s Amar Vilas Hotel, where Musharraf will stay from July 14 to July 16, and you get a stunning view of the Taj Mahal, specifically, the three minarets and the two mosques.

///from indian express. That suite is worth the presidency of pakistan, where ever he may have to land on return to pakistan.

PM #120: ``But who knows what the checks and balances (perhaps non-institutionalised) to this system might have been in times of yore!``

My grouse today is that if there is any literature about the caste relations as they do exist in the towns and villages of India I am not aware of it. Even for the `educated` today the Hindu society is made up of 4 castes and the untouchables/panchamas. That there are so many castes (and so many family professions cutting across the avocations assigned to these 4 groups) and that `the social structure` is not rigid enough for the brahmanas to wield power over a group of people today is a thought that requires breaking away from the image/history that is written about the system so far; and that should be too much for an educated brain from a third-wrold country.

And the caste system today is not limited to the Hindus - I know Christian families who try to marry only from within the (Hindu) castes that they converted from.

``In any case, discussing the subject on he chowk cannot realistically amount to violence upon anyone.``

And we will be around just in case Gupta or his Vivekananda or Sankaracharya (quickly browsed through part of the article) crosses the line anytime! :-)

`the Greek reference`

Around the 2-3rd century AD, an order was passed in the Roman Empire to `freeze` the family professions - the sons are to follow their father`s profession only. From what I remember, this was to control the confusion due to the huge movement of people across the Empire (that spanned a good part of the continent).

Later.

Dear Author,

Brahmins are not just religious schoolars they were the teachers, the guide. To this day in our society respecting our teachers is considered to be the right conduct. By giving it a religios conotation you are producing a skewed view. It is only because of this fact that the imparter of knowledge was placed in the upermost heirarchy in the caste system.

As for guru-reverence in Islam, well it could be seen in the reverence of Quran as well as in the reverence of the Prophet. However such staunch reverence is not found amongst the Sikhs, who also pay homage to their gurus as well as the Granth Sahib.

Every religion has its strong and weak points. Every religion sometimes tends to bent towards illogical belif. However after reading many articles on this site, I find that many author simply overlook this aspect and enjoys ripping down Hinduism as if to prove a point.

Mona

Ekalavya :

Whatever lawbooks applied in the past in Hindu society, today the relevant book is the Constitution-smriti.

The question is how to move the allegiance of people from the other smritis to the Constitution-smriti ? From a practical and from a theoretical basis, we have to show that Constitution-smriti needs all legitimate needs of the people. In this task too, study of how society was organized is helpful.

-Arun Gupta

Ras Siddiqui #110 You post an article by a seasoned Indian foreign service official who writes that ``At the same time, we have given Pakistan the advantage of having nuclear weapons — thereby gifting away our superiority in conventional warfare. ``

I have on previous occasion on chowk argued that morphing the Indo-Pak military balance from conventional weapons to nuclear will go down as one of the Great Blunders of History. And that it reflected not common sense but an overwhelming need to be seen as a Great Power. I was immediately drowned by counter-arguments on how all this was for China etc. I am glad to see that with time even the Indian establishment is recognizing the incredible stupidity of what Indira and later BJP did. Anyway, let us hope all this is history and future generations in India and Pakistan exchange flowers, not bullets or nukes.

sadna #121 You are right - life imprisonment in fact means (at least in Pakistan, and I assume in other South Asian countries too) a certain number of years in prison (20-25 years perhaps as you say). I was a bit quick to criticize the Dawn journalist - although I still think he should have made this thing clear, since most people can be expected to assume that life imprisonment means life imprisonment everywhere (as in US, I am pretty sure).

Further to my post #119, and in my continuing efforts expose to chowkwallahs the past mischief of both governments at the expense of their citizens, I now post this from todays Dawn:

``Separately, Indian officials welcomed two developments in Pakistan on Wednesday. The two developments were the release of an Indian cyclist ordered by Musharraf and reports of a new law to ban military training at Madrasas in Pakistan. ``

How can you jail someone for entering the country without proper documents? Clearly the governments of India and Pakistan have to date been playing games, with poor fishermen, cyclists and such-likes paying the price. Their bilateral relations can go up and down: but why should the average Joe Schmoe from either country be bounced around like a puppet? or imprisoned, with his poor family and dependents left to fend for themselves? If we need to get mad, this is the kind of issue where we should get mad. Not on bs concerning whose religion, economy, politics is good or bad!!

Anyway, let us again give Vajpayee and Musharraf their due for releasing these poor people from their prisons and pray that the governments in South Asia learn to respect the ordinary citizen, rich or poor, and citizen of this country or of that country.

Re Klutz and Zafar

I don`t believe that as a religion, Hinduism has an official name as Islam does. It was, I believe a monikor acquired over the ages. India is probably rooted in the word ``Indus`` as is Hinduism. I belive that it was the arab/muslim invaders who started calling India ``Hindustan``. The natives, I suppose, classified themselves based on language or region, such as Rajput or Punjabi.

One way of looking at it, the geographic place of origin for both the country`s name and the religion is what some of you call the land of the pure. :)

Reply #: 123

Zafar Al-Talib

i must say i never did think of looking up in a dictionary what ``Hindustan`` means.. i just naturally thought it came from the word ``Hindu`` as in the religion. Anyway thanks for enlightening me.

Yea it really made me feel better to know that ``Urdu was at one time referred to as Hindavi``

:)

Reply #: 112

bhartiya musalman

What do u mean Islam is flawed???Look here brother islam is NOT Flawed...if a person follows the Quran and Ahadith then he will get a flawless religion. Every religion has a flaw except Islam.Islam is egalitarian.

``When Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) performed Hajj, on the ninth of Dhul-Hijjah in the plains of Arafaat ,Allah Ta`ala sent Jibraaeel (Alayhis salaam) with the following verse:

Today have I perfected your religion for you, completed my favour upon you and I am pleased with Islam as your religion. ``

If Allah Has said that islam is perfect then who are u to say it is flawed???I agree that today many ignorant muslims have introduced some new things to islam to their satisfaction...but then one should search on islam him/herself not just believe what the molvis are saying!!

Can anyone comment on Khaled Ahmed`s analysis in the current Friday Times, with regard to `Hisba` ordinance?

re: MacGupta # 130

I agree entirely. Whatever may have been our past guides, today the only guide to our behavior in the `social` domain must be our constitution. And the basics of that constitution must be protected absolutely.

re: PM # 120, sb

Friends,

Gupta has done a marvellous job giving the background for the caste system. On a factual level, I have NO disgareement with him. In fact, I salute him for his efforts to venture into a rather difficult and understudied area.

Anybody with even the slightest degree of impartiality can see that problems similar to or worse than caste have plagued almost EVERY society, especially those with a long history. While we Hindus are at least trying to grapple with this problem head-on, there are many many others who do not even recognize that they face the same challenges. All that is very true.

But I repeatedly emphasize that we tread carefully in discussions of caste for a reason. This reason has little to do with my evaluation of MacGupta`s analysis. If I gave such an impression, apologies to him are in order. For I think he did a masterful job. Neither am I on some massive/extended guilt-trip (self-flagellation, as sb puts it) here, although I must confess, having seen the abuses that go under the name of caste from fairly close quarters, there is certainly some guilt in me. But then EVERY upper caste Hindu like me who has directly or indirectly benefitted from institutionalized discrimination against his/her brothers and sisters should have an iota of guilt lurking in his or her heart! The fact that other societies have historically discriminated (and alas, continue to discriminate) against the `other` does not and should not make my guilt go away.

But that is neither here nor there. My reasons for repeatedly emphasizing that we upper caste Hindus be extra-sensitive (nonpragmatic, sb?) to issues of caste are entirely different (and sb, it is not an issue of backbone either, which, by His grace, is probably much stronger than you mistakenly seem to believe).

Got to run before my mad roommate breaks the door down!....will return to this posting soon...