The paeans are sung in the praise of the tolerance of Hindu religion. Its tolerance is in contrast to intolerant stand of other two major religions, Christianity and Islam. The tolerance of Hindu religion is said to be very high (?). All the people coming to this subcontinent were assimilated into the Hindu religion with the exceptions of cow-eating Muslims and British. The Greeks, the Scythians, the Huns, the Parthians, the Kushans and others who came to India as invaders or migrants were ultimately assimilated in the Hindu society to the extent that now they are not separately recognizable. They have lost their original and cultural identities.
The invaders were co-opted by giving them the Kshatriya status and poor migrating communities were assimilated as the Shudras. There were Shudras who never knew when they became Shudras and became a part of the Hindu society. These Shudras either came from outside or lived in the region of India which had not come under the cultural hegemony of the Brahmans. The assimilative powers of the Hindu religion have been grand but they were ineffective in the case of last two major rulers of this mammoth land. These assimilations have taken place without any involvement of violence. There have been no crusades. The Hindu religion is not proselytizing. Nobody has gone converting people to Hinduism. There has been no prescribed method of converting a person to Hinduism. Well, unofficially, one can bribe the Brahmans, touch their feet on regular basis, and, become Hindu, and he has to arrange for his own marriage. His Varna will be decided by the function in which his occupation falls. His caste would be where he marries. It may take minimum five generations by which time the people have forgotten his ancestors.
The spread of Vedic religion has been patronage oriented. It evolved from top to down. This has grown under the patronage of rulers who were impressed by paranormal powers of the Brahmans; no saints set out to convert the people. By and large the concept of Vedic and later Hindu gods seems to have been superior to local gods of local people; however the native modes of worship had to be incorporated into the Hindu system - most probably the idol worship of Shiva and the goddesses. Additionally, the reincarnations were created to appropriate the local and tribal gods. If one patronized the Brahmans or protects them and accepted their superiority and scriptural authority then he became a Hindu and that too a Kshatriya if he is a ruler; and all his deities could be explained as the reincarnations of the gods and goddesses having the recognition of Hindu Dharma. There have been slow assimilating conversions in the history to the Vedic religion. If a poor migrating community starts worshiping the gods from Hindu pantheon then over a period of time; then they, automatically, become the part of the Hindus. They become Shudras, if they are doing clean jobs and Untouchables if they are doing unclean jobs. The Muslims and the British refused to accept the superiority of Brahmans and thus maintained their separate identity. They did not suffer from any illusions about the paranormal powers of the Brahmans. Very bad! Very bad!!! But in India the Muslims and Christians have successfully imported the caste system from Hinduism.
The Hindu society and religion itself consist of groups that worship different gods and still live peacefully with each other. These gods are worshiped in the idol form. The idol mode of worship cuts across the caste and deity lines in the Hindu society. The only condition is that the deities worshiped must belong to Hindu pantheon or be a reincarnation of them. The deities may be worshiped singularly or in groups. The Shudras were prevented from studying the Vedas but not from worshiping the idols. The religious dicta of Hindus do not prevent them from worshiping any god from the Hindu pantheon. Anyway, this internal tolerance developed when the concept of trinity emerged about fourth century C.E. and removed the animosity among the gods. The worshiping of different gods by different people does not create any antagonistic feelings among the followers of different gods. One of the reasons for existence of peace is that the mode of worship is secondary in the Hindu society and the acceptance of precedence of traditional stratification as given in the Purusha Sukta of Rig Veda is primary. The Jati-Dharma is the highest of all Dharmas like the King-Dharma, husband-Dharma, wife-Dharma, father-Dharma, son-Dharma and daughter-Dharma etc. The Jati-Dharma (caste-Dharma or caste protocol) is the highest Dharma and God is also called Dharmeshwer (God of Varna-Dharma ). A Hindu from any Jati has the freedom of choice in worshiping the god/s and/or goddess/s of his liking from the Hindu pantheon. However, there are two restrictions, one is that the priest of a temple can only be a Brahman, and, second is that any Untouchable cannot enter the sacred and pure temples for the fear of defiling the undefilable god. The Yagyas can only be performed by the Brahmans - the misuse of their secret knowledge about Vedas stands out; it was an enforcing way of restricting others from becoming the Yagya performers; they never taught Sanskrit and the Vedas to anybody except the Brahmans - nice ever standing rationality.
The faith in any of the gods or deities has no bearing on Jati or Varna of any individual. This cannot form a basis for exclusion from the caste and the caste is the crux of matter, not the mode of worship. The collective excommunication is the most powerful and enforced weapon in the hands of Varna Dharma. Therefore, any person from any caste can worship the holy trinity of Hindus, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh as long as he believes in superiority of the Vedas and the higher Varnas (by implication). The group identity in Hindu society is based on Jati not on the favored deity. The identification of trinity with the Absolute eliminates any basic differences between the gods. Thus, there are no differences and no resultant antagonism. The concept of reincarnation takes care of the local deities and eliminates the basic differences of deities. The concept of reincarnation acts like a boa constrictor that suffocates the separate cultural identities of local gods to their death and merges them with itself. The goddess have been taken as being complimentary to gods and are usually their wives otherwise reincarnation of their wives. Thus, basic problem among followers of different deities is amicably solved. All the loopholes that can provide basic differences are plugged. And, then what appears is a tolerant religion. But it is far from being tolerant as a society.
However, this tower of tolerance stands on the cries of the writhing Untouchables. Their cries go unheard. Their cries are non-events. These people living barely at sustenance level hardly receive any iota of tolerance. They are invisible to this glorified persona of tolerance – maybe it is blind. The acclaimed tolerance develops myopic vision when it comes to the fifth stratum. At their sight the tolerance turns into a king cobra looking at mice; the fangs outstretched. This king cobra moves in the villages and the cities in various forms. An Untouchable cowering in fear and drenched in tears would not appease the upper castes and their grisly anger. The crawling or prostrating would do it along with the understanding that the upper caste will not be affronted again in the future.
Hindu religion is not tame. On its walls, you can find sincerity, honesty, fairness, humanity and sensitivity - all in frames. It is a result of Hindus possessing the caste zeal. The Hindus do not possess the religious zeal but they are never short of pious and sacred caste zeal.
The Hindu religion did not react violently to the entry of Muslims and British. The presence of the Mosques and the Churches was peacefully tolerated under the coercive power of the state. In this calm scenario of peaceful coexistence, one feature that must be remembered is the incapacity of the Hindu Dharma to react aggressively under adverse conditions. It looked at the small presence of Parsis and earlier Catholic Syrian Christians with passive indifference bordering on smugness. The Varna Dharma acted like a smug lazy python waiting for its prey to come near it and be devoured. It waited for them to come near as the Brahmans waited patiently for an invitation from the kings, especially the emerging new kings who needed the Yagyas to be performed. But these small preys never came near to it. These people were not violating the Varna Dharma since they did not have any. There were always chances of assimilating them through the system of reincarnations. Have they been kings, the Brahmans would have, directly or indirectly, approached them; the stories (canards) of the success of their Yagyas would have been definitely, made to reach them. And the rest would have been peaceful assimilation! But the python waited and waited. But in vain. Well, not in vain; actually it did not need them; it needed the kings through whom they could spread the Varna Dharma. The hopes of assimilation under the superiority of Brahmans were belied. Also these communities were not big enough to be destructive. Such was not to be the case with the Muslims. In the presence of Muslims; the smug, powerful, lazy constricting python got converted into a pliant tolerating rabbit mildly hoping to convert the Prophet Mohammad into a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu. Again, the hopes were belied. However, it maintained its king cobra character for the Untouchables. The Muslims always treated the Hindus as heathen idol worshipers since the idols do not have any actual power. They refused to take the heathen Brahmans - the idol worshipers; as their superiors unlike earlier invaders; they derived their mental strength from their own religious dicta; the Koran.
The earlier invaders had their tribal deities with limited powers related to nature that ultimately lost out to ultra powerful Hindu deities that emerged later as the holy trinity. Muslims also had their concept of all powerful Allah that was more than a match for the Hindu concept of God. There was no way in which one Absolute could be proved superior to another Absolute. Thus, nobody yielded totally though the Islam, over the course of time, came to occupy about one fourth of the Hindu turf.
The Hindu society had multiple centers of power. These centers were the kings, the Brahmans, the temples and the village caste Panchayats or caste councils. These power centers had their own existence independent of each other. And all of them helped in maintaining the Varna Dharma- this was the meeting point. The isolated, insulated and cowardly or so-called autonomous villages with ghastly caste councils played a part in its survival.
The Brahmans were not under the rule of kings. Similarly the temples were very wealthy and socially very powerful but, by and large, not under the control of the kings. They were, by and large, autonomous and received large land grants from the kings, and the donations from others. The temples were accumulating fabulous wealth while the Shudras and Untouchables were eating grains cleaned out of cow dung and the bread made out of fodder and the grass. Why bother? Concern is burnt to pathetic ashes in the realm of the Hindu society. There was divine and dharmic justice (all man created) in favor of the Brahmans and other higher Varnas. The rich temples having land grants did not provide any army or resources to the kings in the case of war, as opposed to feudal system of Europe. The fabulous wealth of the temples became very famous outside India and attracted the attention of invaders who came initially only to rob the rich temples of their fabulous wealth. They came, looted and destroyed nearly all the temples in the north India. They dug out their walls and foundations to find the famed gold, supposedly, buried in them. And the paranormal Brahmans waited for miracles and reincarnations to appear assuming that they had accumulated a very large amount of dharmic Karmas to help them out of the situation; however such hopes based on the infallible Shastras were belied; the Shastras stood like the hollow trunks; Karma hypothesis failed them, miserably; it did not pass any actual test. Their purity and their accumulated Karmas were not sufficient to save the temples and Dharma. In the absence of resources and commitment, no king was powerful enough to stop the looting and destruction of the temples. The Karma hypothesis is quite moronic, atrocious and worthless, as it has no observable effects.
Now, we have to see that why the high caste Hindus who cannot tolerate the presence of an Untouchable, capitulated pliantly before the Muslims as if it was their favored wish or it was in their destiny? Why they became so tolerant while maintaining intolerance to the entry of Untouchables into temples? The Muslims invaders came and plundered as they wished. And came ultimately to rule over the Hindus. Nobody really offered any effective resistance. The outsiders were welcome but not the people of their own villages! Not strange at all!
The Karma hypothesis has induced a strong virtue among people of not wasting a tear or two at the plight of the fifth stratum. Empathy for subhuman beings? Or sympathy for them? You must be fond of cracking jokes. The pure and powerful are dharmic. They do not connive. They are not vile. They are not sly. They do not cooperate with the Shudras and the Untouchables. They do not allow them any resources to prevent them from having an independent sustenance! And what else do you want? Do you want upright Untouchables? In which world do you live? The unofficial India goes by its own rules. Any such kind of foolishness does not touch the high castes; they are the ultra rationalist. Even the herbivores do better; the strong animals always try to protect the weaklings of the group. The Hindus do not have any such destructive tendencies; they are blessed with the ultra rationality!
The unseen terror always floats in the pure air to the benefit of the higher castes. The pure people, pure air and pure terror - unarguably.
The powerless people of Hindu society (the Untouchables) have never experienced famed Hindu tolerance as is widely claimed. The tolerance was reserved for the Muslims and the British who were mightier than them - totally rational behavior. The controls of society, state and economy were reserved for the higher Varnas. Special favors were reserved for special people, not for the people from the stinking bottom of the heap. The intolerance of Hindu society and religion is pretty evident in the ever hanging sword of violence over the heads of Untouchables under the eternal guidance of the pious lawmakers, the Brahmans. The Untouchables are friendless, landless, unarmed, with the lowest and insulted status, hungry, isolated and permanently exploited people at the bottom of the heap of the spiritual Hindu society. Victimizing them is natural order of the scheme. But, shamefully, it was the sacred and unbeatable eternal divine Dharma that lost out to impure invaders - both of them cow eaters! Strange are the ways of God! Who can understand them? Maybe only extremely realized people can understand them but it had hardly any visible effect on the outcome - the pure born-undefeated became the defeated, easily.
The king cobra always raises its hood to its full height whenever any mice raise their voice in favor of equality or challenge it. It no longer remains a suppliant and compliant rabbit. After all, its honor is at stake - the Untouchables dare to raise their worthless heads! The honor, on which the foreign rulers treaded with impunity, gets a sudden upsurge and evidences itself in full form. A frequent, quick and decisive violence is inflicted at the bottom portion of the Hindu society by the upper portion; tradition that is. The worthless dirty thick red water that flows out dying Untouchables' veins is a foolproof evidence of the tolerance of the Hindu religion. It is just a routine, nothing much to be talked about. Just in a day's work. The tolerance does not mean that the bottom of the heap can revolt. One has to be out of his mind to thinks so. Well, the intolerance of Hindus acts inward and tolerance acts outward. It is all relative. The tolerance is bent.
The Brahmans were more pliant than all the others were! They simply disowned the idol worship (?!!!?) to avoid the Jaziya tax imposed by Muslim rulers on the Hindus. The Jaziya tax was not to be imposed on the people of the Book like the Koran and the Bible. The Brahmans, with all their unimpeachable integrity, disowned the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh and the temples and the rest of the Hindus and claimed that their sole allegiance was to their Books - the four Vedas which made them the people of book - ahle-e-kitab. The Brahmans are very simple, innocent, truthful and the sacred people; they do not know the meaning of ditching or treachery or betrayal; you see. Dumping of gods and people was not beneath them; so simple they were! They are not answerable to any Hindu. Any objections, please? The people of Book were not liable to be taxed under the Jaziya tax. Thus, they avoided the Jaziya tax. They became non-Hindu or non-idol worshipers for the payment of Jaziya tax. Long live Dharma! It is a classic example of their flexibility and of not having any answerability towards other Hindus who are lower than them. What? Responsibility towards lower human beings? You must be insane to believe its existence in the traditional Hindu society! They disowned the Hindus and their gods and nobody thought of questioning them! There was a complete lack of indignation at betrayal; people are religiously coward in Hindu society; see not a voice! Accountability is not the thing desperately sought after in the Hindu society. You cannot question their integrity, commitment and innocence. Can you? After all they are pure, pious and the sacred epitome of the selfless service to Dharma! Are not they?
In the light of intolerance of Untouchable and Shudras, their own village people, the emergence of Hindu tolerance seems to be the result of the relative lack of might of Hindu religion against the Muslims. You bow to the mighty, do not you? Showing intolerance and opposing the Muslims and their mosques would have resulted in a quick and brutal show of the state might. The Muslims were the rulers. The fear of reprisals helped the development of Hindu tolerance; it nurtured the tolerance. And social stability was maintained!
The pure birth-attached unbeatable courage dropped dead in the face of invaders and British. What else it could do?
One of the reasons among several others for the Hindus losing out to Muslims was the finely divided and graded society along bloodlines and purity or a complete socially disparaging dissociation of different castes - the caste cuts off individuals from other castes or people in society and degrades them in relation to higher ones. Such a fine, disparaging, scientific, static and divine division of labor produced a society where people could not link to each other because of the segregated bloodlines disconnected them even within a caste. A demilitarized society of thousands Jatis could not produce a homogeneous group of warring people large enough in numbers to tackle the militarized society of Islam where people were linked to each other in the name of Islam and there was no religious edict against the intermingling of blood. We have to remember that the worshiping is secondary in importance in Hindu society to the divine stratification - the ordained division or the Varna Dharma. The linking of society in India was provided by the caste, not by the religion, and the caste cuts off other castes! The new religion of Islam promised equality to its followers and a share in loot to the soldiers. The Islamic soldiers did not most probably understand the concept of equality but they fully understood the importance of a share of loot that prompted them to join the Islam and Islamic army; and they had a promise to go to heaven and live there with the Hoors if they were martyred in the cause of Islam, which helped. And there was no concept of dying for a cause in India. Therefore, there is no equivalent of word "martyr" in Indian languages. There was no cause worth fighting for except a political cause and the caste pride. There was indeed concept of killing and mutilating Shudras and Untouchables for Dharma. But there was no concept of giving up one's own life for Dharma. The absence of such concept like martyrdom was also the contributory reason for the outward tolerance of the Hindu religion and the absence of crusades in the Sanatana Dharma – but the holy violence persists in the form of atrocities against the Untouchables. Some castes were willing to die for their caste honor but not for a general cause. The general cause? What is that? There are only dharmic and caste causes in the unofficial India. Nobody was willing to die so everybody got subjugated. Why die for a general cause or for others? Absolutely, there was no point. Willingness to die for their religion separated the Muslims from the Hindus. The Hindus fought for money. They were valiant but purely mercenary soldiers. The Muslims soldiers were committed to Islam and to a share in the loot.
In presence of such situation, one alternative to avoid the defeat was to have a large army of mercenary Hindu soldiers though finely divided into different disparaged non-inter dining and non-intermingling Jatis. The sheer size could have compensated for the weakness created by the irrevocable divisions in the Hindu society. The army that was big enough to repel the attacks was the need of the hour. The people who could not eat together could not fight together on sustainable basis though they could fight together on a temporary basis until some real danger presented itself. The only motive to fight was to provide sustenance to oneself. These people deserted the army whenever defeat looked slightly possible. Therefore, a mighty army which had confidence in its size was necessary.
There were historical reasons rooted in the past and the structure of the Hindu society for the absence of any big army in the north India. There was no big king in north India at the time of Muslim invasion. This indicates that no king could command loyalties of a large number of people. And the loyalties were related to caste and to sustenance. To have a big standing army or to have the local rulers supply a large number of soldiers, one needed to have a command over a large number of resources. The army had to be paid in kind or money; larger the army larger the payments and larger the resources required. The resources were locked in the temples for sacred purpose and hence unavailable to defend he dharma. The taxes from the trade with Europe were low as the Muslims had blocked the direct trade connections with Europe. The Arabs monopolized the trade between India and Europe until Vasco-de-gama broke this hold.
There was no big army which indicates that the small kings were lacking resources. The small kings with small dharmic kingdoms did not have large resources to raise the large armies to repel the adharmic invaders. Of course, they could have united to fight the invaders, but that meant willingness to die for others, the concept that was quite lacking in Hindu society. The overwhelming pride of Kshatriyas in their bravery, which was a direct result of atmosphere of by and large of a demilitarized society, was no substitute for the need of a big army. The valiant and non-retreating Muslim armies were not in a mood to be cowed down by the presence of God created unbeatable bravery in the Hindu society and they did not fear the cows. And they had a cause to die for and a unity to fight with. The concept of God created unbeatable bravery of the Kshatriyas' could have terrorized the weaker segments of the Hindu society but the outsiders were a different proposition. The Muslims looked for weaknesses in the fractured Hindu sides like disunity and the lack of loyalties. The loyalties were caste related and not village or land related. And in bravery and resources the Muslims were second to none. Not even to the holders of God created unbeatable bravery - the Kshatriyas. The bestowed attributes according to the cosmic Varna Dharma were simply useless; they were fit to be thrown in dustbins where they stayed until the British came on the scene. The victories of Muslims simply rubbished the claim of inherent or Varna bestowed unbeatable bravery. The Muslim rule made a mockery of the divine right to rule of the Kshatriyas. And, still, nothing happened to the Varna Dharma. The Delhi Sultanate, by and large, limited itself to urban centers and the Mughals made a peace with the upper castes. The bottom of the heap remained, by and large, unaffected and stayed in dumps. The ghastly caste Panchayats ruled in the rural areas and maintained the Varna Dharma. The villages were far away from the effects of invaders; the village headman paid the taxes and that was that.
The rise of Islam cut off the trade between India and Europe. Europe depended on India to provide spices and clothes. A large portion of the gold of Roman Empire flowed to India through trade. The Roman Empire was not in existence when the new invaders came to India. However, the trade continued. The rise of Islam brought a stop to that. Europe was the main source of income through trade. After the rise of Islam the Arab traders monopolized the trade between India and Europe. They paid minimum to Indian sellers and charged maximum to European buyers. This had an adverse effect on both India and Europe. The prosperity of both declined. The cities and urban centers in India declined during this period.
Some part of this wealth of Arab traders might have gone to finance the Islamic wars and the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. The extremely high cost for Indian goods ultimately forced the Europeans to find a sea route to India indicating the vital importance of trade for both India and Europe. The Arab traders monopolized this trade for about seven hundred years during which Islam spread and enjoyed its golden Period.
The Golden period of Islam incidentally came to an end with the discovery of sea route to India - due to Vasco-de-gama.
The trade through Arabs reduced the margins on trade and thus reduced the tax revenue for the Indian kings. This directly affected their military resources.
Another source of raising revenue was agriculture. By the time Muslims came to India, the India had had inherited a tradition of wealthy and land owning temples, which were power centers in themselves. The new kings had continued to patronize the Brahmans and temples to raise their social status and attain the status of a caste divinely ordained to rule, in other words to acquire divine right to rule over everybody except the Brahmans and temples. Let us recall that the land grants and donations by the kings and the Vaisyas made these temples so rich that many of them were richer than the richest Vaisyas and even the small kings. The fabulous wealth was locked in them unavailable for the safety of the state and Dharma. The Brahmans who were the knower of Vedas did not have to pay the tax on their land. Other Brahmans were taxed at a lower rate. There was a large scale of transfer of wealth in form of donations to Brahmans and temples but that was not used to finance the defense against the invaders. This hardly can pass as an indicator of traitorhood; you know. On these silly and trivial evidences, you cannot hold anybody as traitor. Well, the gold that should have been used to finance the wars that would have saved Dharma and thwarted the invasions was ultimately looted. Surprised! Why!? The temple wealth also indicated a devotion of Vaisyas to Dharma. The life was not worth living if it was not for Dharma. This automatically meant a paucity of resources with the dharmic kings. By and large, no king could think of attacking temples to loot their wealth because that could have been adharmic and could have robbed him of divine right to rule. The large amount of wealth and socially powerful Brahmans were outside the control of the kings. The temples enjoyed the wealth but did not provide any army to kings in case of war. The Brahmans, individually and through the temples, had cornered a considerable chunk of wealth. This was going to be fatal to India but nobody learned the lessons. Who cares? The Indians are not capable of learning from the history because they do not keep history - that is the unofficial India. The history of India was destined to be taught to the cow-worshipers by the cow-eaters. That came with the modern education. The things are getting stranger and stranger!!!
The resources of the state had shrunk considerably. The trade had reduced. The temples accumulated the gold. Thus in the absence of resources it was not possible to raise a large army of soldiers necessary to fight against the invaders. Invading India was never a new event. Had the new invaders got converted to Hindu religion and undertaken to protect the Brahmans, temples and Dharma like the earlier invaders, there would have been no problem. Everything would have been impeccably nice! But that did not happen. Had it happened then the paeans would have been sung in their favor by the Brahmans. But they did not assimilate. Very bad! Very bad! The doctrine of reincarnation to appropriate prophet Muhammad did not work. However, the Hindus lacked the might to holdout against the Muslim onslaught due to the religious accumulation of wealth that was not available to defend Dharma. The enriched Dharma fell victim to its locked wealth and its disparaging disunity.
During the period of Muslim invasion and rule, God created unbeatable superiority of the upper castes was nowhere to be seen. God created unbeatable superiority knows no reason; its sheer existence is the reason for it to rule over the others. It can never be defeated - "never" is the word; unconditional bravery and intelligence are these. The unconditional born superiority itself is the cause of ruling over the society. If the born superiority gets defeated then it is a farce. If that happens then born superiority or naturally born pure Varna Dharma ceases to make any sense. The purity becomes meaningless. With the Muslim rule, the pure, pious and supposedly superior Hindus became subordinated to people not believing in the Vedas - the adharmic, hated and cow-eating people. However, the upper castes maintained their position in the Hindu society as the Muslim rulers did not interfere with the Hindu society structure; and by and large kept its influence limited to cities. The upper castes made peace with the invaders, gloriously. And the god bestowed uneatable intelligence and the god bestowed unbeatable bravery withdrew into the interior, where they were safe in isolated, insulated and cowardly villages which tucked their tails in and moved out of way at the hint of any invading army. The villages in India have done a lot of cowardly zigzag movements to avoid any touch with the armies and kept the Hindu Varna Dharma unaffected. A grand, glorious and stunning achievement! A perfect example of loyalty to the land! Need one ask more?
One more reason for the defeat might have been that they fought without the benefit of any God reincarnation. Lord Vishnu thought that it was not proper to help the pious, pure and dharmic Hindus. Strange are the ways of God! Indeed!
The invaders were co-opted by giving them the Kshatriya status and poor migrating communities were assimilated as the Shudras. There were Shudras who never knew when they became Shudras and became a part of the Hindu society. These Shudras either came from outside or lived in the region of India which had not come under the cultural hegemony of the Brahmans. The assimilative powers of the Hindu religion have been grand but they were ineffective in the case of last two major rulers of this mammoth land. These assimilations have taken place without any involvement of violence. There have been no crusades. The Hindu religion is not proselytizing. Nobody has gone converting people to Hinduism. There has been no prescribed method of converting a person to Hinduism. Well, unofficially, one can bribe the Brahmans, touch their feet on regular basis, and, become Hindu, and he has to arrange for his own marriage. His Varna will be decided by the function in which his occupation falls. His caste would be where he marries. It may take minimum five generations by which time the people have forgotten his ancestors.
The spread of Vedic religion has been patronage oriented. It evolved from top to down. This has grown under the patronage of rulers who were impressed by paranormal powers of the Brahmans; no saints set out to convert the people. By and large the concept of Vedic and later Hindu gods seems to have been superior to local gods of local people; however the native modes of worship had to be incorporated into the Hindu system - most probably the idol worship of Shiva and the goddesses. Additionally, the reincarnations were created to appropriate the local and tribal gods. If one patronized the Brahmans or protects them and accepted their superiority and scriptural authority then he became a Hindu and that too a Kshatriya if he is a ruler; and all his deities could be explained as the reincarnations of the gods and goddesses having the recognition of Hindu Dharma. There have been slow assimilating conversions in the history to the Vedic religion. If a poor migrating community starts worshiping the gods from Hindu pantheon then over a period of time; then they, automatically, become the part of the Hindus. They become Shudras, if they are doing clean jobs and Untouchables if they are doing unclean jobs. The Muslims and the British refused to accept the superiority of Brahmans and thus maintained their separate identity. They did not suffer from any illusions about the paranormal powers of the Brahmans. Very bad! Very bad!!! But in India the Muslims and Christians have successfully imported the caste system from Hinduism.
The Hindu society and religion itself consist of groups that worship different gods and still live peacefully with each other. These gods are worshiped in the idol form. The idol mode of worship cuts across the caste and deity lines in the Hindu society. The only condition is that the deities worshiped must belong to Hindu pantheon or be a reincarnation of them. The deities may be worshiped singularly or in groups. The Shudras were prevented from studying the Vedas but not from worshiping the idols. The religious dicta of Hindus do not prevent them from worshiping any god from the Hindu pantheon. Anyway, this internal tolerance developed when the concept of trinity emerged about fourth century C.E. and removed the animosity among the gods. The worshiping of different gods by different people does not create any antagonistic feelings among the followers of different gods. One of the reasons for existence of peace is that the mode of worship is secondary in the Hindu society and the acceptance of precedence of traditional stratification as given in the Purusha Sukta of Rig Veda is primary. The Jati-Dharma is the highest of all Dharmas like the King-Dharma, husband-Dharma, wife-Dharma, father-Dharma, son-Dharma and daughter-Dharma etc. The Jati-Dharma (caste-Dharma or caste protocol) is the highest Dharma and God is also called Dharmeshwer (God of Varna-Dharma ). A Hindu from any Jati has the freedom of choice in worshiping the god/s and/or goddess/s of his liking from the Hindu pantheon. However, there are two restrictions, one is that the priest of a temple can only be a Brahman, and, second is that any Untouchable cannot enter the sacred and pure temples for the fear of defiling the undefilable god. The Yagyas can only be performed by the Brahmans - the misuse of their secret knowledge about Vedas stands out; it was an enforcing way of restricting others from becoming the Yagya performers; they never taught Sanskrit and the Vedas to anybody except the Brahmans - nice ever standing rationality.
The faith in any of the gods or deities has no bearing on Jati or Varna of any individual. This cannot form a basis for exclusion from the caste and the caste is the crux of matter, not the mode of worship. The collective excommunication is the most powerful and enforced weapon in the hands of Varna Dharma. Therefore, any person from any caste can worship the holy trinity of Hindus, Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh as long as he believes in superiority of the Vedas and the higher Varnas (by implication). The group identity in Hindu society is based on Jati not on the favored deity. The identification of trinity with the Absolute eliminates any basic differences between the gods. Thus, there are no differences and no resultant antagonism. The concept of reincarnation takes care of the local deities and eliminates the basic differences of deities. The concept of reincarnation acts like a boa constrictor that suffocates the separate cultural identities of local gods to their death and merges them with itself. The goddess have been taken as being complimentary to gods and are usually their wives otherwise reincarnation of their wives. Thus, basic problem among followers of different deities is amicably solved. All the loopholes that can provide basic differences are plugged. And, then what appears is a tolerant religion. But it is far from being tolerant as a society.
However, this tower of tolerance stands on the cries of the writhing Untouchables. Their cries go unheard. Their cries are non-events. These people living barely at sustenance level hardly receive any iota of tolerance. They are invisible to this glorified persona of tolerance – maybe it is blind. The acclaimed tolerance develops myopic vision when it comes to the fifth stratum. At their sight the tolerance turns into a king cobra looking at mice; the fangs outstretched. This king cobra moves in the villages and the cities in various forms. An Untouchable cowering in fear and drenched in tears would not appease the upper castes and their grisly anger. The crawling or prostrating would do it along with the understanding that the upper caste will not be affronted again in the future.
Hindu religion is not tame. On its walls, you can find sincerity, honesty, fairness, humanity and sensitivity - all in frames. It is a result of Hindus possessing the caste zeal. The Hindus do not possess the religious zeal but they are never short of pious and sacred caste zeal.
The Hindu religion did not react violently to the entry of Muslims and British. The presence of the Mosques and the Churches was peacefully tolerated under the coercive power of the state. In this calm scenario of peaceful coexistence, one feature that must be remembered is the incapacity of the Hindu Dharma to react aggressively under adverse conditions. It looked at the small presence of Parsis and earlier Catholic Syrian Christians with passive indifference bordering on smugness. The Varna Dharma acted like a smug lazy python waiting for its prey to come near it and be devoured. It waited for them to come near as the Brahmans waited patiently for an invitation from the kings, especially the emerging new kings who needed the Yagyas to be performed. But these small preys never came near to it. These people were not violating the Varna Dharma since they did not have any. There were always chances of assimilating them through the system of reincarnations. Have they been kings, the Brahmans would have, directly or indirectly, approached them; the stories (canards) of the success of their Yagyas would have been definitely, made to reach them. And the rest would have been peaceful assimilation! But the python waited and waited. But in vain. Well, not in vain; actually it did not need them; it needed the kings through whom they could spread the Varna Dharma. The hopes of assimilation under the superiority of Brahmans were belied. Also these communities were not big enough to be destructive. Such was not to be the case with the Muslims. In the presence of Muslims; the smug, powerful, lazy constricting python got converted into a pliant tolerating rabbit mildly hoping to convert the Prophet Mohammad into a reincarnation of Lord Vishnu. Again, the hopes were belied. However, it maintained its king cobra character for the Untouchables. The Muslims always treated the Hindus as heathen idol worshipers since the idols do not have any actual power. They refused to take the heathen Brahmans - the idol worshipers; as their superiors unlike earlier invaders; they derived their mental strength from their own religious dicta; the Koran.
The earlier invaders had their tribal deities with limited powers related to nature that ultimately lost out to ultra powerful Hindu deities that emerged later as the holy trinity. Muslims also had their concept of all powerful Allah that was more than a match for the Hindu concept of God. There was no way in which one Absolute could be proved superior to another Absolute. Thus, nobody yielded totally though the Islam, over the course of time, came to occupy about one fourth of the Hindu turf.
The Hindu society had multiple centers of power. These centers were the kings, the Brahmans, the temples and the village caste Panchayats or caste councils. These power centers had their own existence independent of each other. And all of them helped in maintaining the Varna Dharma- this was the meeting point. The isolated, insulated and cowardly or so-called autonomous villages with ghastly caste councils played a part in its survival.
The Brahmans were not under the rule of kings. Similarly the temples were very wealthy and socially very powerful but, by and large, not under the control of the kings. They were, by and large, autonomous and received large land grants from the kings, and the donations from others. The temples were accumulating fabulous wealth while the Shudras and Untouchables were eating grains cleaned out of cow dung and the bread made out of fodder and the grass. Why bother? Concern is burnt to pathetic ashes in the realm of the Hindu society. There was divine and dharmic justice (all man created) in favor of the Brahmans and other higher Varnas. The rich temples having land grants did not provide any army or resources to the kings in the case of war, as opposed to feudal system of Europe. The fabulous wealth of the temples became very famous outside India and attracted the attention of invaders who came initially only to rob the rich temples of their fabulous wealth. They came, looted and destroyed nearly all the temples in the north India. They dug out their walls and foundations to find the famed gold, supposedly, buried in them. And the paranormal Brahmans waited for miracles and reincarnations to appear assuming that they had accumulated a very large amount of dharmic Karmas to help them out of the situation; however such hopes based on the infallible Shastras were belied; the Shastras stood like the hollow trunks; Karma hypothesis failed them, miserably; it did not pass any actual test. Their purity and their accumulated Karmas were not sufficient to save the temples and Dharma. In the absence of resources and commitment, no king was powerful enough to stop the looting and destruction of the temples. The Karma hypothesis is quite moronic, atrocious and worthless, as it has no observable effects.
Now, we have to see that why the high caste Hindus who cannot tolerate the presence of an Untouchable, capitulated pliantly before the Muslims as if it was their favored wish or it was in their destiny? Why they became so tolerant while maintaining intolerance to the entry of Untouchables into temples? The Muslims invaders came and plundered as they wished. And came ultimately to rule over the Hindus. Nobody really offered any effective resistance. The outsiders were welcome but not the people of their own villages! Not strange at all!
The Karma hypothesis has induced a strong virtue among people of not wasting a tear or two at the plight of the fifth stratum. Empathy for subhuman beings? Or sympathy for them? You must be fond of cracking jokes. The pure and powerful are dharmic. They do not connive. They are not vile. They are not sly. They do not cooperate with the Shudras and the Untouchables. They do not allow them any resources to prevent them from having an independent sustenance! And what else do you want? Do you want upright Untouchables? In which world do you live? The unofficial India goes by its own rules. Any such kind of foolishness does not touch the high castes; they are the ultra rationalist. Even the herbivores do better; the strong animals always try to protect the weaklings of the group. The Hindus do not have any such destructive tendencies; they are blessed with the ultra rationality!
The unseen terror always floats in the pure air to the benefit of the higher castes. The pure people, pure air and pure terror - unarguably.
The powerless people of Hindu society (the Untouchables) have never experienced famed Hindu tolerance as is widely claimed. The tolerance was reserved for the Muslims and the British who were mightier than them - totally rational behavior. The controls of society, state and economy were reserved for the higher Varnas. Special favors were reserved for special people, not for the people from the stinking bottom of the heap. The intolerance of Hindu society and religion is pretty evident in the ever hanging sword of violence over the heads of Untouchables under the eternal guidance of the pious lawmakers, the Brahmans. The Untouchables are friendless, landless, unarmed, with the lowest and insulted status, hungry, isolated and permanently exploited people at the bottom of the heap of the spiritual Hindu society. Victimizing them is natural order of the scheme. But, shamefully, it was the sacred and unbeatable eternal divine Dharma that lost out to impure invaders - both of them cow eaters! Strange are the ways of God! Who can understand them? Maybe only extremely realized people can understand them but it had hardly any visible effect on the outcome - the pure born-undefeated became the defeated, easily.
The king cobra always raises its hood to its full height whenever any mice raise their voice in favor of equality or challenge it. It no longer remains a suppliant and compliant rabbit. After all, its honor is at stake - the Untouchables dare to raise their worthless heads! The honor, on which the foreign rulers treaded with impunity, gets a sudden upsurge and evidences itself in full form. A frequent, quick and decisive violence is inflicted at the bottom portion of the Hindu society by the upper portion; tradition that is. The worthless dirty thick red water that flows out dying Untouchables' veins is a foolproof evidence of the tolerance of the Hindu religion. It is just a routine, nothing much to be talked about. Just in a day's work. The tolerance does not mean that the bottom of the heap can revolt. One has to be out of his mind to thinks so. Well, the intolerance of Hindus acts inward and tolerance acts outward. It is all relative. The tolerance is bent.
The Brahmans were more pliant than all the others were! They simply disowned the idol worship (?!!!?) to avoid the Jaziya tax imposed by Muslim rulers on the Hindus. The Jaziya tax was not to be imposed on the people of the Book like the Koran and the Bible. The Brahmans, with all their unimpeachable integrity, disowned the holy trinity of Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh and the temples and the rest of the Hindus and claimed that their sole allegiance was to their Books - the four Vedas which made them the people of book - ahle-e-kitab. The Brahmans are very simple, innocent, truthful and the sacred people; they do not know the meaning of ditching or treachery or betrayal; you see. Dumping of gods and people was not beneath them; so simple they were! They are not answerable to any Hindu. Any objections, please? The people of Book were not liable to be taxed under the Jaziya tax. Thus, they avoided the Jaziya tax. They became non-Hindu or non-idol worshipers for the payment of Jaziya tax. Long live Dharma! It is a classic example of their flexibility and of not having any answerability towards other Hindus who are lower than them. What? Responsibility towards lower human beings? You must be insane to believe its existence in the traditional Hindu society! They disowned the Hindus and their gods and nobody thought of questioning them! There was a complete lack of indignation at betrayal; people are religiously coward in Hindu society; see not a voice! Accountability is not the thing desperately sought after in the Hindu society. You cannot question their integrity, commitment and innocence. Can you? After all they are pure, pious and the sacred epitome of the selfless service to Dharma! Are not they?
In the light of intolerance of Untouchable and Shudras, their own village people, the emergence of Hindu tolerance seems to be the result of the relative lack of might of Hindu religion against the Muslims. You bow to the mighty, do not you? Showing intolerance and opposing the Muslims and their mosques would have resulted in a quick and brutal show of the state might. The Muslims were the rulers. The fear of reprisals helped the development of Hindu tolerance; it nurtured the tolerance. And social stability was maintained!
The pure birth-attached unbeatable courage dropped dead in the face of invaders and British. What else it could do?
One of the reasons among several others for the Hindus losing out to Muslims was the finely divided and graded society along bloodlines and purity or a complete socially disparaging dissociation of different castes - the caste cuts off individuals from other castes or people in society and degrades them in relation to higher ones. Such a fine, disparaging, scientific, static and divine division of labor produced a society where people could not link to each other because of the segregated bloodlines disconnected them even within a caste. A demilitarized society of thousands Jatis could not produce a homogeneous group of warring people large enough in numbers to tackle the militarized society of Islam where people were linked to each other in the name of Islam and there was no religious edict against the intermingling of blood. We have to remember that the worshiping is secondary in importance in Hindu society to the divine stratification - the ordained division or the Varna Dharma. The linking of society in India was provided by the caste, not by the religion, and the caste cuts off other castes! The new religion of Islam promised equality to its followers and a share in loot to the soldiers. The Islamic soldiers did not most probably understand the concept of equality but they fully understood the importance of a share of loot that prompted them to join the Islam and Islamic army; and they had a promise to go to heaven and live there with the Hoors if they were martyred in the cause of Islam, which helped. And there was no concept of dying for a cause in India. Therefore, there is no equivalent of word "martyr" in Indian languages. There was no cause worth fighting for except a political cause and the caste pride. There was indeed concept of killing and mutilating Shudras and Untouchables for Dharma. But there was no concept of giving up one's own life for Dharma. The absence of such concept like martyrdom was also the contributory reason for the outward tolerance of the Hindu religion and the absence of crusades in the Sanatana Dharma – but the holy violence persists in the form of atrocities against the Untouchables. Some castes were willing to die for their caste honor but not for a general cause. The general cause? What is that? There are only dharmic and caste causes in the unofficial India. Nobody was willing to die so everybody got subjugated. Why die for a general cause or for others? Absolutely, there was no point. Willingness to die for their religion separated the Muslims from the Hindus. The Hindus fought for money. They were valiant but purely mercenary soldiers. The Muslims soldiers were committed to Islam and to a share in the loot.
In presence of such situation, one alternative to avoid the defeat was to have a large army of mercenary Hindu soldiers though finely divided into different disparaged non-inter dining and non-intermingling Jatis. The sheer size could have compensated for the weakness created by the irrevocable divisions in the Hindu society. The army that was big enough to repel the attacks was the need of the hour. The people who could not eat together could not fight together on sustainable basis though they could fight together on a temporary basis until some real danger presented itself. The only motive to fight was to provide sustenance to oneself. These people deserted the army whenever defeat looked slightly possible. Therefore, a mighty army which had confidence in its size was necessary.
There were historical reasons rooted in the past and the structure of the Hindu society for the absence of any big army in the north India. There was no big king in north India at the time of Muslim invasion. This indicates that no king could command loyalties of a large number of people. And the loyalties were related to caste and to sustenance. To have a big standing army or to have the local rulers supply a large number of soldiers, one needed to have a command over a large number of resources. The army had to be paid in kind or money; larger the army larger the payments and larger the resources required. The resources were locked in the temples for sacred purpose and hence unavailable to defend he dharma. The taxes from the trade with Europe were low as the Muslims had blocked the direct trade connections with Europe. The Arabs monopolized the trade between India and Europe until Vasco-de-gama broke this hold.
There was no big army which indicates that the small kings were lacking resources. The small kings with small dharmic kingdoms did not have large resources to raise the large armies to repel the adharmic invaders. Of course, they could have united to fight the invaders, but that meant willingness to die for others, the concept that was quite lacking in Hindu society. The overwhelming pride of Kshatriyas in their bravery, which was a direct result of atmosphere of by and large of a demilitarized society, was no substitute for the need of a big army. The valiant and non-retreating Muslim armies were not in a mood to be cowed down by the presence of God created unbeatable bravery in the Hindu society and they did not fear the cows. And they had a cause to die for and a unity to fight with. The concept of God created unbeatable bravery of the Kshatriyas' could have terrorized the weaker segments of the Hindu society but the outsiders were a different proposition. The Muslims looked for weaknesses in the fractured Hindu sides like disunity and the lack of loyalties. The loyalties were caste related and not village or land related. And in bravery and resources the Muslims were second to none. Not even to the holders of God created unbeatable bravery - the Kshatriyas. The bestowed attributes according to the cosmic Varna Dharma were simply useless; they were fit to be thrown in dustbins where they stayed until the British came on the scene. The victories of Muslims simply rubbished the claim of inherent or Varna bestowed unbeatable bravery. The Muslim rule made a mockery of the divine right to rule of the Kshatriyas. And, still, nothing happened to the Varna Dharma. The Delhi Sultanate, by and large, limited itself to urban centers and the Mughals made a peace with the upper castes. The bottom of the heap remained, by and large, unaffected and stayed in dumps. The ghastly caste Panchayats ruled in the rural areas and maintained the Varna Dharma. The villages were far away from the effects of invaders; the village headman paid the taxes and that was that.
The rise of Islam cut off the trade between India and Europe. Europe depended on India to provide spices and clothes. A large portion of the gold of Roman Empire flowed to India through trade. The Roman Empire was not in existence when the new invaders came to India. However, the trade continued. The rise of Islam brought a stop to that. Europe was the main source of income through trade. After the rise of Islam the Arab traders monopolized the trade between India and Europe. They paid minimum to Indian sellers and charged maximum to European buyers. This had an adverse effect on both India and Europe. The prosperity of both declined. The cities and urban centers in India declined during this period.
Some part of this wealth of Arab traders might have gone to finance the Islamic wars and the expansion of the Ottoman Empire. The extremely high cost for Indian goods ultimately forced the Europeans to find a sea route to India indicating the vital importance of trade for both India and Europe. The Arab traders monopolized this trade for about seven hundred years during which Islam spread and enjoyed its golden Period.
The Golden period of Islam incidentally came to an end with the discovery of sea route to India - due to Vasco-de-gama.
The trade through Arabs reduced the margins on trade and thus reduced the tax revenue for the Indian kings. This directly affected their military resources.
Another source of raising revenue was agriculture. By the time Muslims came to India, the India had had inherited a tradition of wealthy and land owning temples, which were power centers in themselves. The new kings had continued to patronize the Brahmans and temples to raise their social status and attain the status of a caste divinely ordained to rule, in other words to acquire divine right to rule over everybody except the Brahmans and temples. Let us recall that the land grants and donations by the kings and the Vaisyas made these temples so rich that many of them were richer than the richest Vaisyas and even the small kings. The fabulous wealth was locked in them unavailable for the safety of the state and Dharma. The Brahmans who were the knower of Vedas did not have to pay the tax on their land. Other Brahmans were taxed at a lower rate. There was a large scale of transfer of wealth in form of donations to Brahmans and temples but that was not used to finance the defense against the invaders. This hardly can pass as an indicator of traitorhood; you know. On these silly and trivial evidences, you cannot hold anybody as traitor. Well, the gold that should have been used to finance the wars that would have saved Dharma and thwarted the invasions was ultimately looted. Surprised! Why!? The temple wealth also indicated a devotion of Vaisyas to Dharma. The life was not worth living if it was not for Dharma. This automatically meant a paucity of resources with the dharmic kings. By and large, no king could think of attacking temples to loot their wealth because that could have been adharmic and could have robbed him of divine right to rule. The large amount of wealth and socially powerful Brahmans were outside the control of the kings. The temples enjoyed the wealth but did not provide any army to kings in case of war. The Brahmans, individually and through the temples, had cornered a considerable chunk of wealth. This was going to be fatal to India but nobody learned the lessons. Who cares? The Indians are not capable of learning from the history because they do not keep history - that is the unofficial India. The history of India was destined to be taught to the cow-worshipers by the cow-eaters. That came with the modern education. The things are getting stranger and stranger!!!
The resources of the state had shrunk considerably. The trade had reduced. The temples accumulated the gold. Thus in the absence of resources it was not possible to raise a large army of soldiers necessary to fight against the invaders. Invading India was never a new event. Had the new invaders got converted to Hindu religion and undertaken to protect the Brahmans, temples and Dharma like the earlier invaders, there would have been no problem. Everything would have been impeccably nice! But that did not happen. Had it happened then the paeans would have been sung in their favor by the Brahmans. But they did not assimilate. Very bad! Very bad! The doctrine of reincarnation to appropriate prophet Muhammad did not work. However, the Hindus lacked the might to holdout against the Muslim onslaught due to the religious accumulation of wealth that was not available to defend Dharma. The enriched Dharma fell victim to its locked wealth and its disparaging disunity.
During the period of Muslim invasion and rule, God created unbeatable superiority of the upper castes was nowhere to be seen. God created unbeatable superiority knows no reason; its sheer existence is the reason for it to rule over the others. It can never be defeated - "never" is the word; unconditional bravery and intelligence are these. The unconditional born superiority itself is the cause of ruling over the society. If the born superiority gets defeated then it is a farce. If that happens then born superiority or naturally born pure Varna Dharma ceases to make any sense. The purity becomes meaningless. With the Muslim rule, the pure, pious and supposedly superior Hindus became subordinated to people not believing in the Vedas - the adharmic, hated and cow-eating people. However, the upper castes maintained their position in the Hindu society as the Muslim rulers did not interfere with the Hindu society structure; and by and large kept its influence limited to cities. The upper castes made peace with the invaders, gloriously. And the god bestowed uneatable intelligence and the god bestowed unbeatable bravery withdrew into the interior, where they were safe in isolated, insulated and cowardly villages which tucked their tails in and moved out of way at the hint of any invading army. The villages in India have done a lot of cowardly zigzag movements to avoid any touch with the armies and kept the Hindu Varna Dharma unaffected. A grand, glorious and stunning achievement! A perfect example of loyalty to the land! Need one ask more?
One more reason for the defeat might have been that they fought without the benefit of any God reincarnation. Lord Vishnu thought that it was not proper to help the pious, pure and dharmic Hindus. Strange are the ways of God! Indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment