Wh enever I raise the question of the socio-cultural negation of the Hindu religion, there are many who take serious objection to such a discourse. Do they think that there is absolutely no need to reform that religion? If they think that reform is not required, how do they intend to run this hierarchy-ridden system, which suffers from in- equalities, poverty and a taste for destruction? If they think that re- form is necessary, what sort of reform do they think is possible? T h e Rashtriya Swayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) and its allied organizations have been trying to unite the so-called Hindus without saying a word about the caste system. Some Hindu thinkers blamed caste on the Britishers. They claimed that the British policy of 'divide and rule' created castes in this country. Some thinkers go to the extent of say- ing that the Britishers were responsible for every social divide in- cluding caste and communal politics. Many of these are from Hindu orthodox and fundamentalists groups. They are out to do enormous damage to the Indian nation. Needless to say, most of these theore- ticians are Brahmins. This method of constructing history is a con- spiracy against Dalit-Bahujans. The Brahmins succeeded in their aim because most Dalit-Bahujans were denied education. The Brahmins invoked religion to keep them illiterate, and were extremely un- happy when the British made education available to them. As a con- sequence, the educated among the Sudras, including those who work within the Sangh Parivar, were led to think that they would get equal rights within the present Hindu framework. But they were mistaken.
58 On Social (ustice
Those who have been defending the present structure of Hindu civil society have a responsibility to take on the challenge. Can they spell out their programme of reform? Do they believe in abolition of caste or not? In the process of moving towards abolition of caste, is it not essential to work towards the equalization of the social status of castes? Will the Madigas, Malas, Mangalis, Chakalis enjoy the same social status as Brahmins? How does the RSS and the BJP intend to bring about equal status among all castes? What are the specific programmes? Do the people of this country have a right to know the mind of the ruling party and its allies or not? With religious, political, and social power in their hands, can't they initiate reform? If they cannot, why do they talk about Hindu unity?
The famous Brahmin historian D. D. Kosambi said that it was at the instance of Kautilva that Brahmins were delegated the task of dividing tribals into castes and in the process subduing the Sudras and Chandalas. At that point in history, the only social forces that were challenging the Kautilvan state were the tribals. T h e Brahmins used two instruments; the karma theory and dandaniti (punishment) to thwart any revolt. Further, their division into castes was an ancient method of Hinduization. Hinduization, thus, was used as a mode to establish structural divisions. At what stage the Sudras were divided into several castes is not exactly known. Ever since the divine theory7
of varna was constructed, the socio-political aim of Hindu thinkers has been to divide society into non-unifiable social units which gradually became castes. Never in Hinduism's history of three mil- lennia were the thinkers who made an attempt to unite them to form a broader positive religion allowed to succeed.
In the twentieth century, the major attempts to unite such di- vided groups from below were started by Ambedkar and from above by Gandhi. Gandhi, a Vaishva with a non-dwija Jain background, tried to combine the Jain mode of ahimsa with the Christian mode of pas- sive resistance. It is known that Gandhi borrowed the concept of pas- sive resistance from Henry David Thoreau. In other words, for Gandhi Yardhamana Mahavira and Thoreau's Civil Disobedience were the main ideals. But Gandhi was a clever tactician. Since he had led the Congress Party that consisted of many Hindu fundamentalist Brahmins, he was using the Bhagavad Gita and the names of Rama and Krishna only as a tactical move. Otherwise, how can the concept of aliimsa and Rama, Krishna, and the Gita go together? It was his aim to establish Hindu unity without dismantling the caste system, but
Spiritual Fascism and Civil Society 59 even such an enterprise was not tolerated by the brahminical forces of India.
Christophe Jaffrelot in his well-researched book The Hindu
Nationalist Movement and Indian Politics (Penguin-India, 1996), says:
Gandhi was resented by high caste Hindus because he posed a real danger to their social position. His mobilization of the lower strata of society threatened to alter the basic characteristics of Indian so- ciety by making its cultural periphery its centre. Here lav one of the main reasons why Nathuram Godse decided to kill Gandhi. This Chitpavan Brahmin felt all the more insecure because his so- cioeconomic status was very precarious whereas Maratha and Gujarati Baniyas were emerging as the new upwardly mobile groups of Maharashtra. The himsavada ideology of Brahminism reached its peak with the murder of Gandhi.
Ambedkar saw serious limitations in the Gandhian ideology, while Gandhi, on the other hand, saw a danger to Hindu unity in Ambedkar's liberative reservation programme. As a result, the Poona Pact, a compromise, came into being. The Brahmins within the RSS did not approve the agreement between Gandhi and Ambedkar as they did not want any emancipation of Dalits to take place. This was where the Chitpavan Brahmins of Maharashtra planned a way to eliminate him, and they succeeded. A protagonist of non-violence was eliminated violently. Ambedkar, on the other hand, proposed a theory to annihilate caste based on the Buddhist and Rousseau's theories of liberty, equality and fraternity. He waited till the end of his life before finally realizing that Hinduism was beyond reform and embraced Buddhism. This is the historical background of the intoler- ance towards social reform in India. In other words, Hindu ideology was rooted in the concept of 'divide and rule' and on the 'hegemonization of the other'. T h e main reason for the stagnation of Hinduism is its 'spiritual fascism'. Not many have realized that spiri- tual fascism in civil society and political democracy do not go hand in hand for long.
Once spiritual fascism was established by the Brahmin thinkers, neither the 800-year rule of Muslim kings, nor the 200-year rule of the mighty British empire could break that caste system which was the main instrument of divide and rule. The roots of the caste system lie in spiritual fascism which is in turn predicated on the belief: 'I am
60 On Social (ustice
superior to the other.' T h e concept of aham Brahmasmi in Hinduism is based on the concept of excluvism. It also assigns the role of God to one's own self. T h e Brahmin self declared itself as Godhood and always stood against the production of food from the soil. That is the reason why all Hindu heroes proclaim they are Gods. They do not even consider themselves agents of a God/Goddess. In contrast, all other religions are based on prophet-hood.
One does not find humility in Hindu assertions at all. This ideol- ogy of human beings declaring themselves to be God has a strong tendency of spiritual fascism. The Hindu exclusivism is constructed around this spiritual fascism that institutionalizes itself within the ideological sphere of spiritualism. T h e SC, ST, OBCs are victims of this spiritual fascism. One of the main characteristics of spiritual fas- cism is that in this mode anybody can directly declare himself God. Spiritual fascism, however, does not give much scope for women to be equals with men in any sphere.
T h e caste system killed the basic initiative among people even to embrace others. T h e terrorization by using brutal violence was so complete that Hegel said in his famous book The History of Philoso-
phy that the Indian masses lost their soul and spirit in this violent di-
vision of society. Spiritual elitism ensures that the people cannot form themselves into a nation. A nation is not a political entity, it is a philosophical, economic, civilizational, cultural and spiritual entity. Men and women from all walks of life must play an equal role in all the spheres mentioned above.
T h e Sangh Parivar, as a brahminical organization, cannot build India as a globally respectable civilized nation because it has no agenda for human equality within its vision of Hindu unity. How do their theoreticians think that the Sudras, Chandalas and Adivasis even now, when they are becoming educated without having the right to occupy the highest position in the spiritual domain, will keep quiet and serve the interests of spiritual fascists even in this century and millennium? T h e radical reform I have been talking about is to weed out spiritual fascism that has been institutionalized in our civil society. Naturally, those who benefited from such spiritual fascism defend it from various points of view. But the fundamental question is that those who lost the essence of life need to be liberated from it. When nation-states began to institutionalize themselves, as Hegel pointed out, the human being first sought the integration of the spirit. A civil society which upholds spiritual hierarchization im-
Spiritual Fascism and Civil Society 61 poses all kinds of restrictions on human development. T h e Indian state remains totally disintegrated because of the anti-people ide- ology of Brahminism. Brahminism can deconstruct itself, if it wants a peaceful transformation of Indian society, by integrating itself with the whole of Sudra, Chandala and Adivasi food, puja and pro- duction culture. If Hinduism wants to reconstruct itself, as the teams of Brahmin pundits went into Adivasi territory at the in- stance of Kautilya to divide them into castes, let them now go to Adivasi, SC and OBC wadas to integrate them by eating their food, by sleeping in their houses, by giving up the cultural isolationism and exclusivism of Brahminism. T h e protagonists of Hinduism must accept this challenge.