Supreme Court Ruling On Privacy As Fundamental Right. Blow To Aadhaar Plan
0 comments at August 26, 2017India's top court rules privacy a fundamental right in blow to 'Aadhaar' ID card plan
Article text by NEWS WIRES
A nine-member bench of India's Supreme Court announced the ruling in a big setback for the Narendra Modi-led government, which argued that privacy was not a fundamental right protected by the constitution.
The ruling comes against the backdrop of a large multi-party case against the mandatory use of national identity cards, known as Aadhaar, as an infringement of privacy. There have also been concerns over breaches of data.
Critics say the ID cards link enough data to create a comprehensive profile of a person's spending habits, their friends and acquaintances, the property they own and a trove of other information.
Aadhaar, which over one billion Indians have already signed up for, was set up to be a secure form of digital identification for citizens, one that they could use for government services.
But as it was rolled out, concerns arose about privacy, data security and recourse for citizens in the face of data leaks and other issues. Over time, Aadhaar was made mandatory for income tax returns and operating bank accounts. Companies were also pushing to gain access to Aadhaar details of customers.
"This is a blow to the government, because the government had argued that people do not have a right to privacy," said Prashant Bhushan, a senior lawyer involved in the case.
The government has argued the Indian constitution, which came into effect in 1950, does not guarantee individual privacy as an inalienable fundamental right......
Arrest of Gurmeet Ram Rahim Sparks Riots That Leave 31 Dead and Several Injured
0 comments at August 25, 2017PANCHKULA: Just as feared, large clashes, arson and violence erupted in the town of Panchkula in Haryana on Friday immediately after spiritual guru Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh was convicted of raping two women followers in a case dating back to 2002. Thirty people are dead and 250 injured, officials said, in the violence that quickly spread to other cities. Ram Rahim will be sentenced on Monday and was flown out of Panchkula in a government helicopter to a guesthouse in Rohtak and later moved to a special prison cell.
Later
CHANDIGARH: At least 31 people were killed and over 250 injured on Friday in violence by supporters of self-appointed "godman" Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh in Haryana and neighbouring Punjab after a court convicted him of raping two of his followers. Ram Rahim, the chief of the Dera Sacha Sauda, will be sentenced on Monday and was flown out of Panchkula in a government helicopter to Rohtak where he is in a special prison cell. Officials say the situation in riot-hit towns is grim but under control.Indian Express
The Chandigarh Police on Friday arrested six private commandos of Dera Sacha Sauda chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim while they were entering Chandigarh from Panchkula border near the IT Park in Chandigarh. The police seized one pistol, 25 live cartridges and petrol cans from the commandos who are suspected to have been involved in the violence that broke out in Panchkula on Friday afternoon.
DGP Tajender Singh Luthra said, “The accused who are private commandos of Dera Sacha Sauda were arrested in the evening near the IT park at the Panchkula-Chandigarh border.” He added, “The accused were in two cars, and were carrying petrol cans, a pistol and 25 live cartridges which have been seized. The commandos were unable to produce any licence of the pistol and cartridges.”
The accused were found with burn injuries. It is suspected that they were involved in the violence that broke out in Panchkula. The accused commandos might have set afire the vehicles during the violence as they were also carrying inflammable substance, the DGP added.
Hindustan Times
A day after large scale violence broke out over the conviction of Dera chief Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh, authorities in Punjab and Haryana on Saturday relaxed curfew in some towns to enable the residents to buy essential and eatable items.
In Punjab, curfew was relaxed in Patiala, Bathinda and Ferozepur towns for four hours, while in Haryana it was relaxed in Kaithal town.
In Haryana’s Fatehabad town, the Army was deployed to assist the paramilitary and police personnel in maintaining law and order.
The reports say that the pastor had been receiving threats from "RSS" groups. He was shot down by masked assailants on bike while he was talking on phone outside the church.
CBN NEWS, July 22, 2017
On Saturday night, members of the radical RSS (Rashtriya Swayamseval Sangh) telephoned Pastor Sultan Masih to lure him outside his Temple of God Church in the Ludhiana District of Punjab.
Shortly afterwards, the pastor was shot down by two young men passing by on a motorcycle...
Fellow pastor Balwinder Kumar told police that RSS members had quarreled with Pastor Masih on several occasions and accused him of converting Hindus to Christianity.
"The RSS activists accused him that, 'You Christians get paid for converting people. How much do you pay the converted?'
Kumar said the pastor denied the accusations, but RSS members refused to believe him. They also warned him against holding the anniversary celebration.
In addition to co-founding the Temple of God Church, Pastor Masih also ran a school for impoverished children.
Express, July 29, 2017
Sultan Masih was shot dead in the north-west of the country as he spoke on the phone outside his Temple of God Church in Ludhiana – the largest city in India’s Punjab state.,
He was shot in his leg, face and his chest by two people on bikes, just feet away from him, according to World Watch Monitor.
Masih had been repeatedly threatened and approached by groups of men in the area.
Yet the pastor who had worked for the church for 20 years refused to give into them.
Trainee pastor Alisha Masih, 22, said his father was also harassed over the internet, and on his phone
The 47-year-old was told if he continued to preach, he would be killed.
Despite the good the pastor was doing for his community, running a school for the poor from inside the church, the father-of-four was slain.
Alisha said: “Our father was a courageous man and he was never afraid to die for Jesus.
“He has put the same zeal in us. Our family will continue to serve God.”
Alisha also revealed after an anniversary celebration for his church in May his father had been approached by a group of men who had asked him where he had found the money to pay for the function.
They questioned the pastor over whether they would be “paid” to convert.
The Christian father, who has two adopted children, refused their requests and said he would only accept them if they truly believed in Jesus - and that there was no reward for faith.
His son Alisha said: “We don’t know if the phone call was connected to his murder
“But the people who killed him were surely monitoring his activities because they waited for the time until he was alone.”
Last week Christians took to the streets for three hours, blocking off the road to Jalandhar.
Paul Tamizharasan, a close friend of the pastor said the community is “in shock”.
Times of India, Aug 18, 2017
The Ludhiana police have arrested three accomplices of wanted gangster Dilpreet Singh alias Baba. Importantly, they were all present in the city on the day when pastor Sultan Masih was murdered in the city.
Masih was gunned down by two motorcycle-borne miscreants outside the church 'Temple of God' in Peeru Banda Mohalla of Salem Tabri area on July 15. The killers of pastor were captured in a CCTV footage on Rahon road...
On asking about it involvement of gangster Baba in the pastor's killing, Dhoke said, "It is too early to say anything, but police are verifying it."
To define nationality in terms of race and religion will immediately lead to confusion.
For instance, if we define the term “Indian” (a nationality identifier) as “a person who belongs to the ancient races of the mainland of Hindustan and follows one of the ancient religions of the land, e.g. Hinduism, Buddhism, etc”, then we immediately land into the following problems:
1. A Japanese Buddhist will not be considered an “Indian” because though he follows an ancient religion of the land, Buddhism, he doesn’t belong to one of the ancient races of India.
2. Suppose, the same definition is accepted by the Japanese, i.e. they define “Japanese” as “a person who belongs to the ancient races of the mainland of Japan and follows one of the ancient religions of the land, e.g. Shintoism”, then because he doesn’t follow the religion of Shintoism but follows Buddhism, he will be no longer considered “Japanese” anymore.
3. However, if he is neither Japanese nor Indian, then what is he?
2. Suppose, the same definition is accepted by the Japanese, i.e. they define “Japanese” as “a person who belongs to the ancient races of the mainland of Japan and follows one of the ancient religions of the land, e.g. Shintoism”, then because he doesn’t follow the religion of Shintoism but follows Buddhism, he will be no longer considered “Japanese” anymore.
3. However, if he is neither Japanese nor Indian, then what is he?
But, let’s define “Indian” as “a person who is a citizen of India”, then the confusion disappears.
Yet, it doesn’t mean that “Indian” loses its meaning as an ethnic identifier. For instance, in the term “Indian American“, the ethnic identity (Indian) is retained within the national identity (American)1. Similarly so with “African-American” and “Chinese American”.
As such, it is important to distinguish between political nationality and ethnic identity. They both can go together, but must not be confused with each other. However, a political nation that serves the interests of a particular ethnic group will soon fall to unrest and tyranny. Similarly, a political nation that serves the interests of a particular religious group will also fall to unrest and tyranny.
The ethnic distinguisher should only be functional. For instance, though we may speak of, say, “Indian Americans” in the form of Ethnic-Identity+Political-Nationality, we don’t speak of “Indian Indians” and “American Americans” in the same form. However, we can still speak of “Indian Tamils” (or “Tamil Indians”) or “Sri Lankan Tamils” or “Pakistani Punjabis” or “Indian Punjabis”. Of course, terminology identifying Americans who accept Indian citizenship or Germans who accept Indian citizenship hasn’t developed much. It is not yet popular to speak of “German Indians”, for instance, as Germans who have accepted Indian citizenship. The phenomena may not be large enough to warrant the development of such a terminology, perhaps.
But, with regard to religious identity, given either the political identity or the ethnic identity, it is not impossible to talk of say “Indian Christians” or “Thai Hindus” or “Tibetan Buddhists”, and similarly of “Indian Christians in America” and “Gujarati Jains in Dubai”. However, where race and religion are made defining components of nationhood, no meaningful talk can become possible. The result is chaos and unrest. Consistency demands that these identifiers be kept separate and not made definitive of something altogether different from any of them.
NOTES
FEW QUOTES FROM
x
1 “American Indian” refers to the native Americans.
Ernst Renan (1823-92), What is a Nation?
Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation, which is why progress in historical studies often constitutes a danger for [the principle of] nationality. Indeed, historical enquiry brings to light deeds of violence which took place at the origin of all political formations, even of those whose consequences have been altogether beneficial.Yet the essence of a nation is that all individuals have many things in common; and also that they have forgotten many things. No French citizen knows whether he is a Burgundian, an Alan, a Taifale, or a Visigoth, yet every French citizen has to have forgotten the massacre of Saint Bartholomew,’ or the massacres that took place in the Midi in the thirteenth century. There are not ten families in France that can supply proof of their Frankish origin, and any such proof would anyway be essentially flawed, as a consequence of countless unknown alliances which are liable to disrupt any genealogical system.But what is a nation? Why is Holland a nation, when Hanover, or the Grand Duchy of Parma, are not? How is it that France continues to be a nation, when the principle which created it has disappeared? How is it that Switzerland, which has three languages, two religions, and three or four races, is a nation, when Tuscany, which is so homogeneous, is not one? Why is Austria a state and not a nation? In what ways does the principle of nationality differ from that of races?Ethnographic considerations have therefore played no part in the constitution of modern nations. France is [at once] Celtic, Iberic, and Germanic. Germany is Germanic, Celtic and Slav. Italy is the country where the ethnographic argument is most confounded. Gauls, Etruscans, Pelasgians, and Greeks, not to mention many other elements, intersect in an indecipherable mixture. The British isles, considered as a whole, present a mixture of Celtic and Germanic blood, the proportions of which are singularly difficult to define.The truth is that there is no pure race and that to make politics depend upon ethnographic analysis is to surrender it to a chimera. The noblest countries, England, France, and Italy, are those where the blood is the most mixed. Is Germany an exception in this respect? Is it a purely Germanic country? This is a complete illusion.What we have just said of race applies to language too. Language invites people to unite, but it does not force them to do so. The United States and England, Latin America and Spain, speak the same languages yet do not form single nations. Conversely, Switzerland, so well made, since site was made with the consent of her different parts, numbers three or four languages. There is something in man which is superior to language, namely, the will. The will of Switzerland to be united, in spite of the diversity of her dialects, is a fact of far greater importance than a similitude often obtained by various vexatious measures.Religion cannot supply an adequate basis for the constitution of a modern nationality either. Originally, religion had to do with the very existence of the social group, which was itself an extension of the family. Religion and the rites were family rites. The religion of Athens was the cult of Athens itself, of its mythical founders, of its laws and its customs; it implied no theological dogma. This religion was, in the strongest sense of the term, a state religion. One was not an Athenian if one refused to practise it. This religion was, fundamentally, the cult of the Acropolis personified. To swear on the altar of Aglauros” was to swear that one would die for the patrie. This religion was the equivalent of what the act of drawing lots [for military service], or the cult of the flag, is for us. Refusing to take part in such a cult would be the equivalent, in our modern societies, of refusing military service. It would be like declaring that one was not Athenian. From another angle, it is clear that such a cult had do meaning for someone who was not from Athens; there was also no attempt made to proselytize foreigners and to force them to accept it; the slaves of Athens did not practise it. Things were much the same in a number of small medieval republics. One was not considered a good Venetian if one did not swear by Saint Mark; nor a good Amalfitan if one did not set Saint Andrew higher than all the other saints in paradise.A nation is a spiritual principle, the outcome of the profound complications of history; it is a spiritual family not a group determined by the shape of the earth. We have now seen what things are not adequate for the creation of such a spiritual principle, namely, race, language, material interest, religious affinities, geography, and military necessity. What more then is required? …..
A nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. Two things, which in truth are but one, constitute this soul or spiritual principle. One lies in the past, one in the present. One is the possession in common of a rich legacy of memories; the other is present-day consent, the desire to live together, the will to perpetuate the value of the heritage that one has received in an undivided form. Man, Gentlemen, does not improvise. The nation, like the individual, is the culmination of a long past of endeavours, sacrifice, and devotion. Of all cults, that of the ancestors is the most legitimate, for the ancestors have made us what we are. A heroic past, great men, glory (by which I understand genuine glory), this is the social capital upon which one bases a national idea. To have common glories in the past and to have a common will in the present; to have performed great deeds together, to wish to perform still more – these are the essential conditions for being a people. One loves in proportion to the sacrifices to which one has consented, and in proportion to the ills that one has suffered. One loves the house that one has built and that one has handed down. The Spartan song -‘We are what you were; we, will be what you are” – is, in its simplicity, the abridged hymn of every patrie.A nation is therefore a large-scale solidarity, constituted by the feeling of the sacrifices that one has made in the past and of those that one is prepared to make in the future. It presupposes a past; it is summarized, however, in the present by a tangible fact, namely, consent, the clearly expressed desire to continue a common life. A nation’s existence is, if you will pardon the metaphor, a daily plebiscite, just as an individual’s existence is a perpetual affirmation of life. That, I know full well, is less metaphysical than divine right and less brutal than so-called historical right.
Today, we celebrate once again the fact of India becoming a sovereign nation, free from the rule of the British Monarchy. Colorful decors, hoisted flags, patriotic songs, happy children will flood schools, streets, and stadiums.
We celebrate our political freedom today. But, we are not blind to the sight of oppressed and marginalized fellow citizens. We are not deaf to the cries of orphans and widows. The nation still bleeds and groans in agony from bruises of internal hurts. The external chains have fallen. But, there are wars within.
Social evils, terrorism, naxalism, false gurus, evil rackets, kidnappings, rapes, murders, employee injustice, abuse, drunkenness, thefts, crowd fury, human trafficking, educational corruption, bureaucratic corruption, bribery, cheating, faking, lying, infidelity, forgery, drug abuse, unnatural acts fill the content of daily newspapers. They paint a sad, dismal picture of the nation.
But, there are several groups and organizations that are fighting against these evils. Some of them have achieved tremendous success. They have helped women, children, and men find justice and dignity in the world. On this Independence Day, we laud their combined efforts.
There have also been millions of alert and responsible citizens who have been alert and have helped rescue children, women, men from dangers, from trafficking, from exploitation. Some of them may not have done very big heroic deeds. They only have been cautious to keep our environment clean, to not litter, to not cause pollution. These simple deeds have contributed to the infinity of drops that have made the ocean of goodness in our nation resplendent as the morning sun. We appreciate and honor them on this day!
We laud every gesture of kindness, every eye of mercy, every helping hand, every act of goodness, every labor to excel in that which is noble and philanthropic. We laud every voice of gentleness, every demeanor of politeness, feet that have gone the extra mile to do others good.
We praise those who have borne pain with strength and refused to return evil for evil, who have chosen to put an end to evil by bearing its scourges on their backs. They are the true heroes of our nation.
We celebrate the Independence of the truly independent Indian!
Happy Independence Day!
IN HIS ground-breaking book, Annihilation of Caste, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar diagnosed the caste-problem as being fundamentally religious in nature and proposed the only cure to be a rejection of the Shastras or Hindu scriptures; for, he observed, "the acts of the people are merely the results of their beliefs inculcated in their minds by the Shastras, and that people will not change their conduct until they cease to believe in the sanctity of the Shastras on which their conduct is founded." He proposed inter-caste marriages and inter-caste dinners as a plan of action; but, in response to Gandhi's response to have a rational approach to the Shastras and reject only interpolations rather than reject them altogether, he replied that the "masses do not make any distinction between texts which are genuine and texts which are interpolations. The masses do not know what the texts are. They are too illiterate to know the contents of the Shastras. They have believed what they have been told, and what they have been told is that the Shastras do enjoin as a religious duty the observance of Caste and Untouchability." Towards the end of his indictment, Ambedkar begins to hint at a deeper problem than that of the Shastras:
For one honest Brahmin preaching against Caste and Shastras because his practical instinct and moral conscience cannot support a conviction in them, there are hundreds who break Caste [[e.g. when a Brahmin sells shoes instead of practicing priesthood]] and trample upon the Shastras every day, but who are the most fanatic upholders of the theory of Caste and the sanctity of the Shastras. Why this duplicity? Because they feel that if the masses are emancipated from the yoke of Caste, they would be a menace to the power and prestige of the Brahmins as a class. The dishonesty of this intellectual class, who would deny the masses the fruits of their [=the Brahmins'] thinking, is a most disgraceful phenomenon. [Text in double parenthesis, mine]
Ambedkar had noted that there are intellectual Brahmins who do not care for the Shastras but care much for caste. In other words, he had in a way acknowledged that the rejection of Shastras is the not real solution. Already in the discourse, he had noted that "Caste is no doubt primarily the breath of the Hindus. But the Hindus have fouled the air all over, and everybody is infected—Sikh, Muslim, and Christian." Was he referring to the permeation of casteism into Sikhism, Islam, and Christianity in India? If so, as is also the fact, the very phenomenon invalidates the argument that rejection of Shastras is the cure for caste-communalism. The Sikhs, the Muslims, and the Christians do not accept the Shastras.* Then, how is it that casteism holds a grip on many of them?Though Ambedkar had tried to show in the treatise that castes among Sikhs, Muslims, and Christians is different from that which is found among Hindus, modern facts show that, on the contrary, the caste-system, regardless of religion, has permeated even these faith-groups. In fact, for a long time there have been movements among Christians that sought emancipation through various expressions in what is studied in Seminaries as dalit theologies. The question is raised whether identification with caste is a class problem or a religious problem. It is notable that converts from the different castes of the Hindu-fold continued to carry forward their caste-identities. See the following entries:
Caste System Among South Asian Muslims
Caste System Among Indian Christians
Caste System Among Sikhs in Punjab
Though "untouchability" is not always very obvious, casteism plays a big role in issues of marriage and association. In fact, there are, sadly, some "Christian" denominations in South India that are heavily caste-oriented. The author has personally heard of cases where some "upper caste Christians" wouldn't partake of the Lord's Communion because it was being administered by a Pastor who they regarded as being a "low caste". How repugnant?
Ambedkar had noted it well that it is easier for some "saints" to preach the equality of men in the eyes of God. There were examples of such preachers in the history of Hinduism. Ambedkar noted: "They did not preach that all men were equal. They preached that all men were equal in the eyes of God—a very different and a very innocuous proposition, which nobody can find difficult to preach or dangerous to believe in."
Utilitarianism is the king. Mammon or worldliness bears the scepter over these men who make adulterous liaisons with the devil for the sake of earthly profit. They sell their faith for a pot of pottage and betray their Lord for 30 pieces of silver. They would secretly create false certificates and adopt false surnames of the lower caste in order to avail of jobs or privileges reserved for the latter. Then, they would proudly bear about their ancestral surnames and rejoice in their being a special species of men. How corrupt! How corrupt still that the abomination is placed in the Holy of Holies!
Is there a cure? Of course, there is: Repentance! Men are only slaves to what they submit to in their mind. Nothing can enslave them. Casteism is not just a social problem. It is SIN! It is the most irrational and superstitious concept to ever occur to human mind and the most self-dividing and self-destroying notion. Religion IS NOT THE ANSWER. If it was, why are there still castes among different religions. Why was there the division between nobility and the common man in the West? Why was there such persecution against the freedom of conscience?
God calls humans to repent of their sins against their fellow men. And, unless they are willing to treat their neighbors as themselves, they have no place in the Kingdom of God.
See Also:
The Origin of the Four Castes According to Manu
* Though it is an undeniable fact that casteism has its theoretical basis in the Vedas and the Hindu scriptures, including the Manusmriti, while converts to other faiths try to retain their caste-status in opposition to the doctrinal basis of their faith. For instance, when a Christian practices caste discrimination, his practice is not in conformity to the teachings of the Bible. However, for a Hindu to observe caste is not in any way a contradiction of the teachings of the Shashtras. [Sat 5 Aug 2017]
The draft of the Jharkhand Freedom of Religion Bill 2017 has been approved by the Raghubar Das Cabinet.1. The Bill prohibits religious conversion by means of force or allurement. It states:
No person shall convert to attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion/ religious faith to another by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means, nor shall any person abet any such conversion.
The Bill further prescribes that any religious conversion must only follow prior permission from the District Magistrate:
(1) Whoever converts any person from one religion/religious faith to another, either by performing any ceremony by himself for such conversion as a religious priest or takes part directly or indirectly in such ceremony shall take prior permission for such proposed conversion from the District Magistrate concerned by applying in such form as may be prescribed by rules.
(2) The person who is converted shall send intimation to the District Magistrate of the District concerned in which the ceremony has taken place of the fact of such conversion within such period and in such form as may be prescribed by rules.
(3) Whoever fails without sufficient cause, to comply with the provisions of sub-section (1) and (2) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to rupees five thousand or with both.
The Evangelical Fellowship of India responded immediately:
We note that similar laws already exist in the states of Arunachal Pradesh, Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Himachal Pradesh and Gujarat. They were made in Rajasthan, and were made and withdrawn in Tamil Nadu.
Although such laws existed in some Hindu principalities in colonial India in early 20th Century, since Independence, the Union or state government have not been able to define the terms inducement, coercion, force or fraud in the context of religion. The Government and in fact the Supreme Court have not given a definitive definition of the term ‘religion’ specially when it relates to faiths other than Islam, Christianity, Sikhism, or Buddhism and also has not yet explained, after 70 years of being a Republic, indigenous faith and belief systems of hundreds, if not thousands of small communities across the country, and especially in what are called tribal areas, are not listed separately but are lumped together under the majority religion.
The government has also not been able to adduce any proof or evidence over half a century of aggressive implementation of such laws, of any forcible conversions by Christians against whom such laws are essentially targeted. There are hardly any convictions in courts to sustain police and political allegations of forcible and fraudulent conversions. As a matter of fact, the Himachal Pradesh High Court, a few years ago, struck down efforts by the government to force prior approval, after the Evangelical Fellowship of India moved a petition along with other parties.2
Religious conversion is a burning issue in India. During the Independence Movement, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, had concluded that there was no dignity for the depressed classes as long as they identified themselves with the Hindu caste religion. He converted to Buddhism. He strongly opposed Gandhi's decry of religious conversions of the depressed classes. Gandhi regarded the "Harijan" (a term he coined) as not possessing the calibre for freedom of religious decision. Ambedkar opposed that. The concern of most leaders has been that the masses are incapable of decision making in matters of religion. However, these political leaders were elected by exercise of the freedom of decision by the same masses. Or was it that lure and force were used to conjure votes? Why not pass a Political Freedom Bill that requires any citizen voting for a political party to obtain prior permission from the Magistrate? Of course, this is unimaginable. The idea of prior permission is antithetical to the idea of freedom. Of course, these laws will not prevent citizens from exercising religious freedom. Religious conversions will continue to occur though many may not find it necessary to report their matters of conscience to the state.
One thing is positive about such laws, however. They prove that religious conversions that take place in spite of such laws cannot be called as inauthentic and false anymore. Faith conversion (a better word) cannot be challenged when one has genuine grounds for his/her personal belief.
See Also
Anti-Conversion Laws In India
NOTES
1 Jharkhand Cabinet Clears Anti-Conversion Bill, Indian Express, Aug 2, 2017.
2Jharkhand Bill Ignores Himachal Lesson - (Download Bill copy)
From Marbaniang, Domenic. Secularism In India: A Historical Analysis (2009).
THERE WERE bills and acts in relation to religious conversion even before the independence. Instances are the Raigarh State Conversion Act of 1936 and the Udaipur State Conversion Act of 1946. These laws aimed at eliminating the rural and tribal rights of freedom to conscience and religion.[1] After independence, there have been at least five states (Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat) that have enacted laws to either curtail or cease conversions. The following section is an account of the Freedom of Religion Acts enacted by States of Orissa, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, and Gujarat to check the tide of religious conversions and problems arising from it. The Gujarat Law and parliamentary affairs minister Ashok Bhatt, recently, has referred to these laws as anti-conversion laws.[2]
- The Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1968
This anti-conversion law was enacted in face of allegations that the Christian Missionaries were using lure and force for religious conversions. In 1954, the Niyogi Committee set up by the Congress government in Madhya Pradesh accused Christian missionaries of creating ‘a state within a state’ and observed that the ‘philanthropic activities of Christian missionaries are a mask for proselytization.’[3] The Sangh Parivar also alleged that the missionaries were promoting political dissent in the State.[4]The Madhya Pradesh Assembly rejected the Freedom of Religion Bills of 1958 and 1963. However, this bill was passed in 1968 as ‘The Freedom of Religion Act.’[5]
The Madhya Pradesh ‘Freedom of Religion Act’ requires that a convert produce a legal affidavit that s/he was not under any pressure, force, or allurement to convert but was converting by own will and desire after evaluating the religion properly.[6] Also according to this law, anyone who writes or speaks or sings of ‘divine displeasure’ (with an intention to induce forced conversion by means of threat) can be imprisoned for a period of up to two years and fined up to five thousand rupees.[7]
Evidently, this law is an open violation of the right to freedom of religion that includes the freedom to propagate one’s religion. What is ‘divine displeasure’ in one religion may not be ‘divine displeasure’ in another religion. However, without propagation of religion, this cannot be known to a person belonging to another religion. Moreover, if there is no propagation of such fundamentals of religion, which distinguish one religion from the other, then there can be no conversions. Therefore, a law prohibiting the preaching of a fundamental tenet such as ‘divine displeasure’ is an attempt to prevent the citizen from a proper exercise of his/her right to freedom of religion.
- The Orissa Freedom of Religions Act of 1968
The state of Orissa enacted the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act in 1968. It stated that “no person shall convert or attempt to convert either directly or otherwise any person from one religious faith to another by the use of force or by inducement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.”[8] Contravention of this law was punishable with imprisonment of up to one year and/or a fine of up to Rs 5,000. In the case of a minor, a woman, or a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Tribe, the punishment was up to two years of imprisonment and the limit of the fine raised to Rs. 10,000.[9]The Orissa High Court, however, struck down the Act as ultra vires of the Constitution[10] on the ground that the state legislature did not have the right to legislate matters of religion.[11] The same year, the state of Madhya Pradesh also enacted the Madhya Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act as seen above. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in contrary to the Orissa High Court, negated the challenge of some Christians that the Act violated their fundamental right as provided under Article 25 of the Constitution. The decisions of both the Courts were challenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and reversed the decision of the Orissa High Court.[12] The Supreme Court ruling by a full bench said:
We find no justification for the view that Article 25 granted a fundamental right to convert persons to one’s own religion. It has to be appreciated that the freedom of religion enshrined in the Article is not guaranteed of one religion only, but covers all religions alike and it can be properly enjoyed by a person if he exercises his right in a manner commensurate with the like freedom of persons following other religions.
What is freedom for one is freedom for others, in equal measure; and there can be no such thing as a fundamental right to convert any person to one’s own religion.[13]
Ruma Pal notes that this decision of the Supreme Court has been justifiably criticized for its failure in distinguishing between conversion by force and conversion by persuasion.[14] Even advertisements make use of the art of persuasion. The right of freedom to choose one’s own religion has no meaning if the very means of choice were removed. Choice between religions is unthinkable in the absence of an intellectually persuasive propagation of religion. Thus, the Supreme Court’s ruling that disregards the fundamental right to freedom of propagating one’s own religion is unjustifiable. As H.M. Seervai notes:
Art. 25(1) confers freedom of religion—a freedom not limited to the religion in which a person is born. Freedom of conscience harmonizes with this, for its presence in Art. 25(1) shows that our Constitution has adopted a “system which allows free choice of religion.” The right to propagate religion gives a meaning to freedom of choice, for choice involves not only knowledge but an act of will. A person cannot choose if he does not know what choices are open to him. To propagate religion is not to impart knowledge and to spread it more widely, but to produce intellectual and moral conviction leading to action, namely, the adoption of that religion.[15]
Thus, the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act of 1968 cannot at all be considered a Freedom of Religions Act since it takes away the very means of freedom to choose and practice one’s own religion.
- The Arunachal Pradesh Freedom of Religion Act of 1978
This Act was enacted to prevent the tribals of Arunachal Pradesh from converting to other religions. It reads:3) Prohibition of forcible conversion.
No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise any person from indigenous faith by use of force or by inducement or any fraudulent means nor shall any person abet any such conversion.
4) Punishment of Contravention of the Provision of Section.
Any person contravening the provisions contained in Section 2, shall without prejudice to any civil liability, be punishable with imprisonment to the extent of two (2) years and fine up to ten thousand (10, 000) rupees. (i) whoever converts any person from his indigenous faith to any other faith or religion either by himself performing the ceremony for such conversion as a religious priest or by taking part directly in such ceremony shall, within such period after the ceremony as may be prescribed, send an intimation to the Deputy Commissioner of the District to which the person converted belongs, of the fact of such conversion in such forms as may be prescribed.[16]
Evidently, the meanings given to the word ‘inducement,’ namely ‘the offer of any gift, or gratification, either cash or in kind and also include grant of any benefit, either pecuniary or otherwise,’ in the law can dangerously affect social work by religious groups, even though their intentions are charity-oriented. Such ambiguity within the law is a clear indication of the State’s intention to restrain individuals from using their right to freedom of religion.
- The Tamil Nadu Anti-Conversion Act of 2002.
The Tamil Nadu Anti-conversion Act of 2002 stated that ‘No person shall convert or attempt to convert directly or otherwise any person from one religion to another either by use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means.’[17] The immediate provocation for this Act, supposedly, ‘was the threat of hundreds of Dalits of Koothirambakkam village, near Kancheepuram, to change religion because their decades-old demand that their right to enter and worship at the common village temple be protected by the government had not been conceded.’[18]There had been great protest against this ordinance from various corners. Police arrested 10 people who were planning a mass conversion on December 6, 2002 in protest to the new anti-conversion law. About 3,000 Dalits were to be converted to Christianity and Buddhism, without applying to the local magistrate to approve their conversion in accordance to the new law, on this day according to this plan.[19] Apparently, the Dalits saw this law as violating their fundamental rights and also ridding them of the opportunity to rise. However, President of the Maharashtra branch of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP), Ashok Chowgule, congratulated the Tamil Nadu government on the ordinance. He said conversions cause social tensions.[20] The State Council of the All-India Democratic Women's Association also opposed the bill as being unjustified and opposed to the rights of minorities and Dalits ensured in the Constitution.[21]
On May 7 2004, the Prohibition of Conversion Act Protest Committee appealed to the electorate to vote for the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam-led Democratic Progressive Alliance (DPA). The DMK was said to have in its manifesto a promise to repeal the Anti-conversion law.[22] However, soon after the defeat of the BJP led coalition in the 2004 elections, the Tamil Nadu Government led by Jayalalitha repealed the law in June to the chagrin of many Hindu Fundamentalists and Nationalists.[23]
- The Gujarat Freedom of Religion Act.
Soon after its victory in Gujarat the Narendra Modi government decided to accord "top priority" to the commitment given in the BJP poll manifesto and enact a law against religious conversions in the state.[24] Accordingly, the Gujarat Assembly passed the Freedom of Religion Act in March 2003.[25] It was called the Dharam Swatantrata Vidheya[26] (Freedom of Religion Act). Narendra Modi called the Act as one of the main ‘achievements’ of his government’s one year in office.[27] Evidently, anti-conversion law is a significant part of BJP agenda. The law prohibited conversion by force or inducement.[28]All the above anti-conversion laws violate the Constitutional provision of fundamental rights to the citizens of India. Thus, it has been seen that the various anti-conversion laws are a direct contravention of the provisions given in the Constitution.
Also, the opposition of conversion is, evidently, an attempt to destroy the citizen’s right to freedom of religion and desecularize Indian society. Though it is known that this attempt is futile in this globally connected world of information explosion, yet many of the Sangh activists are actively busy in trying to stop conversions, reconvert non-Hindus to Hinduism, and make India a Hindu nation. Back in 2002, L.K. Advani, the then Deputy Prime Minister of India, told the parliament that ‘India can never be turned into a Hindu nation.’[29]
True to Advani’s statement, India can never be turned into a Hindu nation because of the educational, economical, social, and political foundation that the British and the early leaders of Independent India laid.
NOTES
[1] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[2] ‘Anti-conversion Laws Yet To be Framed,’ The Times of India, Nov. 7, 2004, Ahmedabad.
[3] Subhash Agarwal, ‘Law, Order, & Religious Conversions’, The Financial Express, Sept. 25, 2003.
[4] Hansel D’Souza, ‘Christians Awake! The Secular Citizen’, June 1995, http://www.hvk.org/Publications/cihp/an1.html
[5] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[6] Ibid, p. 146 & R. Domenic Savio, ‘A Descriptive Study of Prarthana Bhavan, Sanjay Koyala Nagar’, (unpublished M.A. Thesis, Acts Academy of Higher Education, 2004), p. 81.
[7] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 142.
[8] Section 3 of the Orissa Freedom of Religions Act, 1968. As cited by Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, Religion and Personal Law in Secular India (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2001), http://iupress.indiana.edu/textnet/0-253-33990-1/0253108683.htm
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[11] Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, op. cit.
[12] Ibid.
[13] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, p. 140.
[14] Ruma Pal, ‘Religious Minorities and the Law’, op. cit.
[15] As cited by Ruma Pal, op. cit.
[16] Ebe Sunder Raj, The Confusion Called Conversion, pp. 141-2.
[17] ‘Anti-conversion Ordinance Decried’, The Times of India, Nov. 6. 2004, http://www1.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/articleshow?artid=2469800
[18] Frontline, Dec.3, 2004, p.10.
[19] ‘Crackdown Over India Mass Baptism’, BBC News, South Asia, Friday, 6 December, 2002, 04:56 GMT .
[20] ‘Anti-conversion Ordinance Decried’, The Times of India, Nov. 6. 2004.
[21] ‘Anti-conversion Bill unjustified: AIDWA’, The Hindu, Nov. 12, 2002. http://www.hinduonnet.com/2002/11/12/stories/2002111204290500.htm
[22] http://www.hindu.com/2004/05/08/stories/2004050803510400.htm
[23] http://www.hindu.com/2004/06/09/stories/2004060905050500.htm
[24] http://paknews.com/PrintPage.php?id=1&date1=2003-01-11&news2=main1
[25] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/382992.cms
[26] BBC News, Tuesday, 25 February, 2003, 17:25 GMT, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2798771.stm
[27] http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/382992.cms
[28] http://paknews.com/PrintPage.php?id=1&date1=2003-01-11&news2=main1
[29] BBC News, 5 December, 2002, 19:08 GMT, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/2546023.stm
"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." (Prov.18:17)
The Opposition is a vital part of modern democracy. It ensures that the government elected by the people is working on behalf of the people and fulfilling the goals it set before them. It also ensures that the ruling party practices transparency and accountability. The Opposition has the right to question the actions of the government and demand an account or rationale for its actions. It may be wrong in its assumptions, but it has the right to voice its questions, without which democracy will be annihilated. To try to silence the voice of the Opposition by any means whatsoever is to kill the soul of the nation which is liberty, unity, fraternity, and justice; for where the right to freedom is exterminated, democracy is dead. A government that labels the Opposition as traitor for questioning its actions is against the people. The Opposition provides an opportunity for the people, who are the real judges in a democracy ruled by the law and not a mob, to see the other part of the story instead of falling for the rhetoric of the first. A good government will answer the questions raised by the Opposition because they are questions raised on behalf of the people. Ultimately, it is the people who will decide whether the government was right in its decisions or not. But, there is a Moral Law that is higher and foundational to all manmade laws; and, one cannot kick against the pricks and not be hurt.
 |
| Max Mueller (1823-1900) |
There have been various interpretations of Vedic theology throughout history. But, one of the most original was suggested by Max Muller (1823-1900), an authority on the Sanskrit language and translator of several ancient scriptures, which helped him compare religions not only theologically but also linguistically. In his Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religions of India (1878), Max Muller considered Vedic religion to preliminarily involve mainly the worship of the Sky God or the Heavenly Father. He writes:
Five thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans, speaking as yet neither Sanskrit, Greek, nor Latin, called him Dyu patar, Heaven-father.
Four thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans who had travelled southward to the rivers of Penjab, called him Dyaush-pita, Heaven-father.
Three thousand years ago, or, it may be earlier, the Aryans on the shores of the Hellespont, called him Ζευς πατηρ [Zeus pater], Heaven-father.
Two thousand years ago, the Aryans of Italy looked up to that bright heaven above, hoc sublime candens, and called it Ju-pitar, Heaven-father.
And a thousand years ago the same Heaven-father and All-father was invoked in the dark forests of Germany by our own peculiar ancestors, the Teutonic Aryans, and his old name of Tiu or Zio was then heard perhaps for the last time.[1]
Muller thought that personification of natural elements turned to deification of these as deities, later on. For instance, He saw that the name Dyaus (Zeus or Jupiter, light-giver, a fitting name for the sky) was later replaced by various gods, who represented some of the principal activities of the sky, such as thunder, rain, storm, evening and morning, night, day, etc.[2] Thus, gradually there originated a pantheon of deities in the Vedas.
James Wheeler classified the more important Vedic deities as follows:
Rain.
Indra, god of the firmament
Varuna, god of the waters
Fire.
Agni, god of fire.
Surya, the sun.
Soma, or Chandra, the Moon.
Air.
Vayu, the god of wind.
Maruts, the breezes who attended upon Indra.
The God or judge of death, Yama
There are also various personifications to whom hymns are address, such as Earth, Sky, Food, Wine, Months, Seasons, Day, Night, and Dawn.[3] However, Surendranath Dasgupta was of the opinion that the gods of the Vedas were impersonal in nature, as their names Agni (Fire), Vayu (Wind), etc also indicated.[4] He classified the gods as terrestrial, atmospheric, and celestial. Subodh Kapoor divides the Vedic gods into three groups: the gods of earth such as Agni and Soma; the gods of the atmosphere such as Indra and the Maruta; and, the gods of heaven such as Mitra and Varuna.[5] There seems to be a three-tier relationship between nature and the divine: earth-atmosphere-heaven.
However, there seems evidence that the various names considered now popularly as deities were not different gods but names of the One. For instance Rig Veda 1.164.46 states:
They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.[6]
The White Yajur Veda Book 32 also points to the oneness of God in the phrase “is That”. Thus, “Agni is That; the Sun is That; Vâyu and Chandramâs are That. The Bright is That; Brahma is That, those Waters, that Prajâpati. All twinklings of the eyelid sprang from Purusha, resplendent One. No one hath comprehended him above, across, or in the midst. There is no counterpart of him whose glory verily is great.” (WYV 32.1-3).[7] The word pratima translated as “counterpart” by Griffith can also be translated as “image”; thus, the verse seems to speak against the idolization of the deity. He is also called the Bright, Bodiless, Woundless, Sinewless, the Pure which evil hath not pierced, far-sighted, wise, encompassing, and self-existent (WYV 40.8). In the Upanishads, however, the Self itself is declared to be the only true reality. The Self as all is declared as having both form and also being formless (Brihadarayanka Upanishad 2.3.1). The “oneness” verses of the Vedas seem to fit well with the later non-dualistic interpretations of reality and as such could have been precursors of the doctrine, if not later interpolations. Yajur Veda 40 indubitably reflects the beginning of non-dualistic tendencies:
5 It moveth; it is motionless. It is far distant; it is near.
It is within This All; and it surrounds This All externally.
6 The man who in his Self beholds all creatures and all things that be, And in all beings sees his Self, thence doubts no longer, ponders not.
7 When, in the man who clearly knows, Self hath become all things that are, what wilderment, what grief is there in him who sees the One alone?
8 He hath attained unto the Bright, Bodiless, Woundless, Sinewless, the Pure which evil hath not pierced. Far-sighted, wise, encompassing, he self-existent hath prescribed aims, as propriety demands, unto the everlasting Years.
9 Deep into shade of blinding gloom fall Asambhûti's [the Uncreated’s] worshippers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on Sambhûti [the Created] are intent.
10 One fruit, they say, from Sambhava [Possibility], another from Asambhava [Impossibility]. Thus from the sages have we heard who have declared this lore to us.
11 The man who knows Sambhûti [Creation] and Vinâsa [Annihilation] simultaneously, He, by Vinâsa [Annihilation] passing death, gains by Sambhûti [Creation] endless life.
17 The Real's face is hidden by a vessel formed of golden light. The Spirit yonder in the Sun, the Spirit dwelling there am I. OM! Heaven! Brahma![8]
Obviously, to know Creation and Dissolution at the same time means to transcend the phenomenal world of time, birth, death, and history and be eternal. The Veda aims at eternal life; but finds a possibility only in the inherent immortality of the Self.
Demonology
In Vedic literature, gods and demons seem to be equal in power, though demons became less powerful beings later on. According to Moncure Daniel Conway, demons in Indian literature were previously gods who became demonized later on. He compared this phenomenon with the demonization of deities in Zoroastrianism and suggests a possible political purpose behind the same; possibly, the politics of demonization began in Persia leading to the migration of some of these tribes, whose gods were demonized, into Asia.
The most powerful priesthood carried the day, and they used every ingenuity to degrade the gods of their opponents. Agathodemons were turned into kakodemons. The serpent, worshipped in many lands, might be adopted as the support of sleeping Vishnu in India, might be associated with the rainbow (‘the heavenly serpent’) in Persia, but elsewhere was cursed as the very genius of evil.
The operation of this force in the degradation of deities, is particularly revealed in the Sacred Books of Persia. In that country the great religions of the East would appear to have contended against each other with especial fury, and their struggles were probably instrumental in causing one or more of the early migrations into Western Europe. The great celestial war between Ormuzd and Ahriman—Light and Darkness—corresponded with a violent theological conflict, one result of which is that the word deva, meaning ‘deity’ to Brahmans, means ‘devil’ to Parsees.
The Zoroastrian conversion of deva (deus) into devil does not alone represent the work of this odium theologicum. In the early hymns of India the appellation asuras is given to the gods. Asura means a spirit. But in the process of time asura, like dæmon, came to have a sinister meaning: the gods were called suras, the demons asuras, and these were said to contend together. But in Persia the asuras—demonised in India—retained their divinity, and gave the name ahura to the supreme deity, Ormuzd (Ahura-mazda). On the other hand, as Mr. Muir supposes, Varenya, applied to evil spirits of darkness in the Zendavesta, is cognate with Varuna (Heaven); and the Vedic Indra, king of the gods—the Sun—is named in the Zoroastrian religion as one of the chief councillors of that Prince of Darkness.[9]
 |
| Samudra Manthan or The Churning of the Ocean |
Max Muller considered Asura to be the “oldest name for the living gods” and connected it with the Zend Ahura.[10] Another theory looks at the Asuras as actually the original inhabitants of India that absorbed the Aryan influx and became the authors of the Rig Veda.[11] The theory of looking asuras as the dark-skinned people vanquished by the devas (“the shining ones”) is being discounted by scholars. Wash Edward Hale notes that Hiranyahasta (a term by which the asuras are described in the Rig Veda) "does not mean "dark-skinned." It means "having golden hands" and occurs once in the RV with asura-as an epithet of Savitr, the sun (RV.1.35.10).”[12] Also, according to C.N. Rao, the Asuras were the first gods of India.
There was a perpetual fight...during the course of which some of the Asuras seems to have called truce and agreed to occupy a subordinate and yet important position in the Aryan fold. Varuna, for instance, is an Asura and yet a god of the Aryans. How this came to pass may be accounted for by the fact that originally he was a powerful rival of Indra and passages can be quoted from the Rigveda to show that for some time they were each contending for the upper hand. But in course of time, Varuna contented himself with remaining in the Aryan fold by accepting sovereignty over the 'Antariksha' and administering the Rita or the Law.... Similarly with the Maruts, originally Asuras, but accepting a subordinate yet important position in teh hierarchy of the Aryan gods. It is remarkable that no Suras are mentioned in the Rigveda, but only Asuras and the word Suras is only a late formation on mistaken etymology. That is why also the Asuras are called the Purvadevatah.[13]
Rao’s view seems to accord with the theory that the Asuras went through a process of demonization, and were not yet demonized in the Rig Veda.
It is interesting to also note that Asura is in the beginning seen in connection with Surya (sun) and Savitar in the Rig Veda. In RV.1.35, both Savitar and Asura are called the golden-handed one, and while Savitar is the one who drives away sicknesses and bids the Sun to come and is the one who spreads the bright sky through darksome region, Asura is the one who drives away Rakshasas and Yatudhanas and is referred to as God who is present and is praised by hymns in the evening. Asura is also referred to as the gentle and kind Leader (RV 1.35.7; 1.35.10). In RV.3.29.14, Agni (Fire) is considered to have been brought to life from the Asura’s body. In RV.3.38.4 and 3.38.8, the Sun is referred to as Asura and Savitar. In 3.53.7, Angirases and Virupas are called Asura’s heroes, the Sons of Heaven. In 3.56.8, Asura’s heroes Savitar, Varuna, and Mitra are considered to rule over the three bright realms of the Sky, the Waters, and the Earth. In 4.53.1, Savitar is called the sapient Asura; also, in 5.49.2. In 5.63.3, Varuna and Mitra, the Lords of earth and heaven cause rain on earth by the power (maya) of Asura. In 5.63.4, Mitra-Varuna hide the Sun with cloud and flood of rain and water drops. In 7.6.1, Asura is called the “high imperial Ruler, the Manly One in whom the folk shall triumph… who is as strong as Indra” and is called “the Fort-destroyer.” In” 8.20.17 and 10.67.2, the Creator Dyaus is referred to as “the Asura”. In 8.42.1, Varuna is referred to as the Asura who the heavens, and measured out the broad earth's wide expanses. It is only in 10.138.3, that we first see Arya mentioned along with Asura. In this verse, Indra is said to have overthrown the forts of Pipru who was a conjuring Asura.
Evidence seems to support the theory of Asura-Ahura homogeneity. Also, it has been discovered that one Mitanni treaty does list the names of some of the Vedic gods like Varuna, Mithra, and Nasatya in an order similar to the Vedas. Excerpts from the 14th century B.C. Hatti-Mitanni treaty give the names of the Vedic deities as follows: Mitrassil Arunassil, Indara Nasattiyanna (KBo I 3 Vo 24).[14] The order of the names looks the same as the order of pairs in Rig Veda 10.125.1 “Varuna and Mitra, Indra and Agni, and the Pair of Asvins”, i.e. the Nasatyas. KBo I 1 Vo 55-56 (of the Hatti-Mitanni treaty) has a slight change in the rendering: Mitrassil Uruwanassil, Indar Nasattiyanna leading to a conjecture that Uruwana, or Ruwana meaning “the one in charge of flowing waters,” is Varuna the creator of the water blocking monster Vritta that Indra is praised for killing.[15]
Asura as a divine class continues to feature in the Sama Veda where Indra is referred to as Asura in SV.6.2.12.2. However, in 6.3.5.2, Surya (Sun) is referred to as the slayer of “Dasyus, Asuras, and foes”, hinting possibly to the first demonizing instance of the class. In 9.3.7.3, Indra is referred to as the one who overthrew the great might of the Asura.
In Yajur Veda, we begin to see the casting off of Asura from the solar realm to the territory of the night. In 1.3.14 Agni is referred to as Rudra, the Asura of the mighty sky. However, by 1.5.1, we begin to see the first conflict between the gods and the Asuras in which the gods win. Agni (previously mentioned as an Asura) is seen as the one who runs away with the wealth that the gods deposited in him. In 1.5.9 we first find the statement that the day belongs to the gods and the night belongs to the Asuras, who entered night with the treasures of the gods. The gods, perceiving that “the night is Agni’s” begin praising Agni thinking he will restore to them their cattle, and Agni does deliver them their cattle from “night to day”. In 1.6.11 it is seen that the gods deceived the Asuras with the help of Agni. In 2.2.6, Agni has become associated with the gods, and the place of the gods is the Agni Vaishvarana, the year. From that place the gods drove away the Asuras. In 2.3.7, the gods are seen as defeated by the Asuras and as, having lost power and strength, made servants. However, Indra tries to pursue but cannot win and so he turns to Prajapati’s stipulated sacrifice by which he receives power and strength. Therefore, it is said that through the sacrifice and Agni, the gods defeated the Asuras. In 2.4.1, we find the first classification of sides. gods, men, and the Pitrs (fathers) on one side; Asuras, Rakshashas (giants), and Pishachas (cannibals) on the other. Thus, appears the first classification of the demonic triad in Vedic history.
In the White Yajur Veda 40.3, the Asuras are considered to inhabit the worlds that are enwrapt with blinding gloom. To them, when life on earth is done, depart the men who kill the Self.
Anthropology
Humans are referred to as mortals in the Vedas (SV.1.5.2). Men are Manu’s race (SV.2.2.8). Manu appointed Agni as the chief priest (RV.1.13.1; 1.14.11; SV.5.1.10). Agni, kindled by mortals is the immortal fire that mediates between the immortal gods and mortal men. Humans are divided into two groups: the law-abiders versus the Dasyus (or Dasas), the riteless, lawless ones (SV.3.1.3.2; 6.2.20.3). The Dasyus are said to be on the side with Asuras and foes (SV.6.3.5.2). After death, the soul departs to a place prepared by Yama, the god of death (RV.10.14.2). There is no talk of reincarnation yet during the Vedic period. Also, Yama is not the god of hell, but the god of the place where the fathers have gone.
Soteriology
The invocations in the Vedas usually call for blessings of rain, cattle, fruitfulness, and for defeat of the evil foes. In RV.1.24.14, we find a prayer to Varuna the Asura to lose the devotee of the bonds of sins. In RV.1.34.11, the Ashvins are invoked at the time of sacrifice to “make long our days of life, and wipe out all our sins: ward off our enemies; be with us evermore.” In 1.129.5, though used as a comparative for Indra, the concept of the Priest as one who drives all the sins of man away is found. In 2.28.9 and 5.85.8, Varuna is seen as the one who drives away all sins. In 7.86.5, there are two kinds of sins from which the devotee prays for deliverance: sins committed by the fathers and sins committed by self. In 10.105.8, the prayer is that Indra would grind off all sins and the observance is that he is not pleased with prayerless sacrifices.
Integral to the Vedic religion is the concept of Sacrifice (for which the Vedic hymns were mainly composed). Sacrifice is the means of obtaining blessings, protection, and ascendance to the realm of the gods. Food was offered to the gods through the sacrificial rite, and the sacrifice destroyed the evil spirits and rakshashas.
Some humans attained the life of spirits (RV.10.15.1). RV.10.15.14 talks of those who were consumed by fire and those not cremated, both of whom are invoked to be granted the world of spirits and their own body; suggesting that both cremation and burial were accepted in the Vedas. Shukla Yajur Veda 30.5 mentions hell as the place where murderers go. Atharva Veda 12.4.36 states that hell is reserved for anyone who doesn’t give a Cow to Brahmans when they ask for it.
[1] Max Muller, Lectures on the Origin and Growth of Religion as Illustrated by the Religions of India (London: Longmans, 1901), p.223
[4] Surendranath Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy, Vol.1(Cambridge, 1922) , p.16 at Gutenberg.net
[5] Subodh Kapoor (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Vedic Philosophy, Vol. 8 (Delhi: Cosmo Publications, 2002), p.2280
[8] The Texts of the White Yajurveda, tr. Ralph T.H. Griffith, [1899], at sacred-texts.com. Parenthetical suggestions, mine.
[9] Moncure Daniel Conway, Demonology and Devil-lore (New York: Henry Holt & Co, 1879), pp.25,26 [Gutenberg.org]
[13] Chilukuri Narayana Rao, An Introduction to Dravidian Philology (Asian Educational Services, 1929), pp.37,38. Purvadevatah means “previous or older gods”
[14] Arnaud Fournet, “About the Mittanni-Aryan Gods”, Journal of the Indo-European Studies, Vol.38, No.1&2., 2010. Academia.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)