Inclusion of Vedic religion in minorities.

 

Tuesday, July 30, 2019

To,

Mr. Syed Ghayorul Hasan Rizvi,

Chairperson,

National Commission for Minorities,

3rd Floor, Block-3,
CGO Complex, New Delhi 110 003

Sub.: Inclusion of Vedic religion in minorities.

Ref.: National Commission for Minorities, AR 2016-17, Chapter 10.1.

Respected Sirs,

We have gone through the Annual Report, 2016-17 of the Commission, especially a part cited (10.1) regarding minority status to the Vedic Brahmins. We understand that the honorable Commission is not satisfied with the request sent by the Ministry of the Minority Affairs in this regards and thus has referred back the issue to the central Government. The report observes that the Vedic Brahmins are an integral part of the Hindu religion and expresses the concern that if the request is agreed upon other castes like Rajput, Vaishyas etc. too would also claim the similar dispensation. The Commission also seems to worry about the possible fragmentation of the Hindu religion, if the request is fulfilled.

We are of the opinion that the commission has erred in understanding the age-old religious distinction between Hinduism and Vedicism. We also do not agree with the observation that the granting minority status to the Vedics will fragment the Hindu religion because they never were part of the Hindu religion. We wish to bring following points to your notice those shall suffice to clear how Vedic religion is distinct and hence why granting minority status to the Vedic Brahmins (and also to initiated Kshatriyas and Vaishyas) is fair and just on the following grounds;

1. Vedic religion finds its source in Vedas that is explained in the Brahmanas and regulated by the Smrities whereas Hindu religion finds its source in the Agamas and Tantras. The ritualistic practices in both religion are distinct and unrelated to each other.

2. Only Vedics have the religious right of initiation in Vedic fold, reciting of the Vedas and Vedokta sanskaras. Only three Varnas, i.e. Brahmin, Kshatriya, and Vaishyas are called as twice-born, those together form the Vedic society.

3. The fact should be noted that the Brahmin is a Varna in Vedic social system and not a caste. Caste and Varna are the independent social systems of the two distinct religions. Hindus do not identify themselves with the Varna but the caste.

4. Shudra is the self-invented term by the Vedics to address all those who belonged to the distinct religious traditions. All the religious traditions that Hindu person (or so-called Shudras) follows, finds no root in the Vedas but the Tantras. The historical fact is the Shudras were prohibited from all the Vedic rituals and recitals. They had their own temples, religious scriptures better known as Agamas or Tantras and the priests even in the era of Manusmriti. (Ref. Manu. 3.152-166) Presently also most of the Hindu temples do not have Vedic Brahmin priests. Various castes have their own priests to conduct their religious ritualistic affairs. Even if the Vedic Brahmin is invited, he conducts the religious rituals based on the Tantrik (i.e. Puranokt) system and not Vedokta. Vedokta is totally denied to them. This clearly differentiates the Vedics from Hindus.

5. All those, no matter indigenous or foreign clans, no matter which faith they followed, were Shudras to the Vedics as is evidenced by Manusmriti. (Manu-10.44) Shudra originally was a name of the tribe situated at the banks of the Indus River, which was later used to address all those who did not belong to the Vedic religion.

6. In the later course, the existence of the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas was denied by the Vedic Brahmins because of the internal feuds, barring a few communities like Rajputs and some Vaishya castes as an exception.

7. The Hindu religion mostly is idolatrous and is based on the Tantras those are against the tenets of the Vedas. In fact, the idolatry is prohibited by the Vedas and only through the fire sacrifices they offer their oblations to their abstract gods.

8. Though some Vedic Brahmins are the temple priests to earn a livelihood, they add Vedic hymns in the Prayers though they are not at all meant for the gods being worshipped. The recital of Purushasukta in Hindu temples is a fine example of such malpractices. The corruption in the Hindu religion is rampant which needs to be brought to an end.

9. The Shankaracharyas, those claim to be religious heads of the Hindu religion, the fact is, they represent only the Vedic religion. Only Vedic (Twice born and expert in the Vedas and Vedic Dharmashastras) can reach to that position. No Hindu ever can become the Shankaracharya of any of the Peetha because they do not belong to the Vedic religion. This clearly shows the distinction between the two religions.

10. The demand that has comes from two Brahmin organizations clearly shows that they also are aware of their independent religious status; hence their demand is just and fair. It is necessary that their demand be obliged by the Commission. There is no question of fragmentation of the Hindu religion as the distinction between two religions in scriptures and in practice is well marked.

11. Considering Hindu and Vedic religion one and the same already is doing great harm to the Hindu religion. The social rift, such as Brahmin and non-Brahmin rivalry is age-old and still is brewing in society. Still treating the Vedic Brahmins as an integral part of the Hindu religion will be utter negligence to the socio-religious facts. Hindu religion does not find its source in the Vedas. Vedas do not uphold idolatry. No Hindu god finds mention in the Vedas. No Vedic God is worshipped by the Hindu society. There is no connection between both religions.

12. The Smritis were never intended for the Hindus as is evidenced by the socio-political history of India. Smritis were only meant to regulate the Vedic religion and not Hindu.(Ref. http://ssonawani.blogspot.in/2017/09/manusmritinot-hindu-code.html) There is no evidence to show that the Hindus ever gave any heed to the Vedic Smritis for they were never meant to regulate Hindu religion.

We, on behalf of the Hindus, humbly request the Commission that the request coming from both the Brahmin organizations be accepted as it is genuine and justified on the religious grounds. There should be no objection from the Honorable Commission in granting Vedic Brahmins the minority status they seek. Since Brahmin is a full-fledged Vedic Varna and is in minority their demand be fulfilled.

If the Commission needs a presentation with proofs in this regard, Aadim Hindu Parishad will be obliged to do so.

Thanking you,

Yours sincerely,

FOR AADIM HINDU MAHASANGH,

SANJAY SONAWANI SANJAY KSHIRSAGAR

Key Takes on - Origins of the Vedic Religion: And Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation. - Sanjeev Sabhlok

Finished Sanjay Sonawani's book (Origins of the Vedic Religion: And Indus-Ghaggar Civilisation) . 

Key take aways :

 

1) Vedic tribes were entirely different (and separate) to Indus valley civilisation. Modern Hinduism is a combination of both civilisations

- I broadly agree with this finding, based on evidence marshalled by Sanjay. The original Hindu religion is (and remains) idolatrous and has absolutely NOTHING in common with Rig Vedic religion. Rig Vedic religion can't be mixed with Hinduism, as commonly understood - although what we now get is a kind of uneasy amalgam of the two. (The fact that Dayanand Saraswati had to work very hard to get fire alters to be built across the country, is proof that the Vedic religion had degraded around 150 years ago).

 

I have a question re: the caste system. How did that come into place? That issue has not been adequately dealt with in the book, although I notice that some discussions of Indus Valley civilisation highlight the existence of separate sections of cities which presumably accommodated different castes.

 

2) Rig Vedic and Avestan people were contemporaries from South and North Afghanistan, respectively (one could have been slightly older than the other, but it is hard to say).

 

- The evidence assembled is comprehensive and largely persuasive. I'm inclined to consider the Avestan culture as older than the Vedic, though, based on the evidence in Sanjay's book, and the evidence assembled by Witzel.

 

I would like a greater discussion of soma - which is only found (nearby) in south Iran. This, to me, is a sign of the middle-Eastern origin of the ideas underpinning both these religions.

 

3) There must have been a script of some form to record the Vedas, a script we have since lost: it being hard (if not impossible) to memorise the Vedas by rote.

- I'm not so persuaded by this, having seen how Vedas are memorised by rote. There is little possibility, in my view, of a Sanskrit script coming into place in the early days of the RV. It was never hard (but not impossible) even in the relatively early days of language to create permanent records in some form or shape, but there is absolutely no record of written Sanskrit till around 500 BC. No doubt the language developed somewhat before that record but there is no requirement of a script in order to transmit the Vedas. It is important, though, that since the process of memorising and transmitting was expensive, it needed political support.

 

4) Like with the transmission of most historical religions, the Rig Vedic religion was transmitted by movement of preachers, not through war (invasion) or the movement of people.

 

- Violence is not a good way to transmit religion. Persuasion is a much better way. Sanjay argues that the people of Afghanistan are the same (and so also the people of the Indus Valley) are unchanged. They haven't moved en-masse, but their religion/culture has changed. This broadly makes sense.

 

However, the transmission of any religion require resources, so there is almost always an accompaniment of successful religions by political or financial outreach. The fact that there are plenty of battles discussed in the Avesta and Rig Veda, suggests that the intrusion of Rig Veda.

 

What is missing or insufficiently discussed:

 

1) The Rta.

- This is actually the core idea of the Vedas - the system of natural order. This is also found in the Avesta (asha/arta). More importantly, this has been referred to in the Mittani kingdom in extensive detail (http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zor.../ranghaya/mitanni.htm).

 

2) PIE theory and Prakrits.

There was a recent discussion/ debate on my blog between Sanjay and another commentator regarding this issue. I think Sanjay should study the PIE theory and Prakrits and fit these into his model. He does suggest that language is not a new thing and evolved tens of thousands of years ago, so there are common roots. However, a better explanation of the Prakrits is needed.

 

OVERALL COMMENT

 

I have already explained (in my view) why it is impossible for RV to have transmitted outside India. RV is a "finished" product, while other versions found outside India are fragments (although Avesta is close enough). But this is how things develop: from less complex to more complex. Therefore there is (in my view) a further history to Avesta/ Rig Veda - that lies possibly in the Mittani/ Hittite and other civilisations. These could be precursor religions to Zoroastrianism/ Vedism.

 

The sequencing of events seems to me to be the following:

 

- Gods like Indra/ Varuna conceptualised somewhere in the middle east.

- Conception of Rta conceptualised.

- Idea of fire worship conceptualised (in a primitive form)

- But no formal hymns or rituals created

- Then these ideas transmitted to Afghanistan through preachers

- These ideas most forgotten in the middle East (although somewhat similar ideas did continue through Mithraic religion (which is well documented)

- Zoroaster is born in North Afghanistan and tries to revive this older religion. Starts off a religious 'document'

- Battle of 10 kings

- Neighbouring tribes adopt the Avestan religion (they have precisely the same reverence for Asuras, in the initial stage).

- Due to further battles, disputes, the tribes change their approach to Asuras. RV prefers devas, now

- The tribes (and religions) separate and go their own way

- Being politically displaced, the Vedic tribes find a foothold in North India (Punjab) and further expand the RV (still no script), as part of consolidation

- Vedic tribes are successful in merging with the remnants of the Indus Valley civlisation (which has **entirely** died out by the time they reach North India)

- People like Manu arise to "formalise" everything and we get the hodge-podge called modern Hinduism - which claims monotheism (Vedic) but practices weird forms of idolatory.

 

Sonawani's book (and theory) has been very helpful in thinking through various things, even though I find he needs to broaden his search (to the middle East and the PIE/prakrits).

 

I'm going to try to create a list of facts that everyone agrees with and then try to find which theory fits.

 

Sanjay, this is not a review of your book. Just some initial points. I'll make some further notes and publish on my blog in the coming weeks. Happy to get your thoughts on these initial notes, so I can correct any errors of understanding.

Btw, I have no idea how the Prakrits came into being. Need to think more about it.

 

https://www.facebook.com/sabhlok/posts/pfbid0wnR4s6DAmswCFQDgC4fNZrTaoPxUKxRZC3hp8Dc38iqMrePSE3uv1qE6DRhuzKXKl