Over centuries, the percentage of Hindus in the world and even in India has been declining. Hindus formed 84.98% of the Indian population as per the 1951 census. It came down to 82.7% in 1971, 82.6 in 1981, and 82.41 in 1991. The 2001 census report nails the figure further down at 82%.

But for those quick to point a finger at Muslim and Christian priests seeking new converts, a caveat is in order. Simply take into account the Hindu priests unaware of Rigvedic norms but armed with the Manusmriti.

They have contributed to the decline of Hindu population by making it difficult for a sizeable chunk of Hindus — dalits — to remain Hindus with dignity.

Concepts of caste classification by virtue of birth are prohibited by the Rigveda, Ramayana and Bhagwat Gita. Protagonists of birth-based casteism cite Purus-Sukta (X.90.12) of Rigveda and the slokas (IV.13) and (XVIII.41) of Gita. This claim violates other richas of Rigveda, other slokas of Gita and examples set by Lord Rama. That there is no mention of any birth-based caste in Rigveda is evident from the simple fact that names of none of the Rigvedic rishis carry any present day caste titles.

Vedas, Valmiki Ramayan and Gita are the three supreme religious scriptures of Hinduism. Rigveda was composed around BC 1500 but some even date it back to BC 5000. All other scriptures like Brahmanas, Upanishads, Puranas, Sutras and Smritis are only commentaries. And all these latter day scriptures themselves acknowledge the supremacy of Vedas. For example, Manusmriti (Sloka II.6) states that Vedas are the primary source of authority.

Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee in his book Hindu Law and the Constitution says that by a rule of interpretation, if the shruti (Vedas) and the smriti differ on any point, the former is to prevail.

It is believed that Manusmriti was composed during the Kushan period, about 100 years after Chanakya. Arthur A. Macdonnel in his book A History of Sanskrit Literature (1899) estimates that Manusmriti in its present form was composed around AD 200.

Macdonnel also warns that the Smritis are not on the same footing as law books of other nations as these are works of private individuals (Brahmins). None of these works from Manusmriti onwards was approved by any religious congregation.

That the Manusmriti has been tampered with was acknowledged by Sir William Jones, an employee of the East India Company, who introduced it as the law book of Hindus in British Indian courts. The devil lies in the details: Wilson translates that ‘‘when they immolated Purusa, into how many portions did they divide him?

What was his mouth called, what his arms, what his thighs, what were his feet called? His mouth became the Brahman, his arms became the Rajnya, his thighs became the Vaishya, and the Sudra was born from his feet.’’

Another translation by Ralph T.H. Griffith goes: ‘‘When they divided Purusa how many portions did they make? What do they call his mouth, his arms? What do they call his thighs and feet? The Brahman was his mouth, of both his arms Rajnya was made. His thighs became Vaishya, from his feet the Sudra was produced.’’

This context, that the division of body of Purusa into four parts was done to kill/immolate/sacrifice the Purusa, has been totally suppressed in Manusmriti.

In sloka (I.31), Manusmriti claims that for the growth of people (lokanbridhi) Brahma created Brahman, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra from mouth, arms, thighs and feet respectively. With a view to create hereditary monopoly on the easy money of dakshina, priests who came centuries after the Vedas concocted that as Brahmin was born from mouth of Purusa, was the superiormost and as Sudra was born from feet, an impure part, he was impure and the inferior most.

Manusmriti (5/132) states that organs above nabhi (navel) are sacred (pavitra) and those below are impure (apivatra). But there’s no sanction for such a hypothesis in Rigveda.

What Rishi Narain, composer of (X.90) has revealed is common sense: Even the most powerful man like Purusa can be immolated/destroyed if his mouth, arms, thighs and feet are separated. If we kill a person what do we do? We cut his body into pieces. This is what followers of Manusmriti have been doing over centuries — destroying Hinduism from within by dividing Hindus among different castes by birth, at fratricidal war with each other.

There are at least ten Rigvedic richas showing that profession was not hereditary. In V.23.1) and V.23.2) rishi Dyumna prays to Agni: ‘‘Bestow Agni, upon Dyumna, a son, overcoming foes by his prowess; one who may with glory subdue all men in battle” (Wilson). In IX.112.3 another rishi says ‘‘I am the singer, father is the physician.’’ But in Manusmriti, a physician is a sudra. Wilson translates X.125.5: ‘‘I verily of myself declare this which is approved by both gods and men; whosoever I will, I render him formidable, I make him a brahman, a rishi or a sage.’’

Some assert that Aryans were/are fair complexioned and sudras, dark skinned. They also claim that four varnas were based on colours of skin. This is not true, as Lord Rama and Lord Krishna are always depicted as dark complexioned. Rishi Kanva, who richly contributed to Rigveda, was himself dark-skinned (X.31.11).

In Ramayan, Lord Rama set forth two lessons for all Hindus that we witness every year in Ramlilas but never really follow. Ravana was a grandson of rishi Pulatsya. He was an expert on the Vedas too. So, he was a Brahmin by birth under Manu’s definition as well as a Brahmin (educated) by qualification (veda-gyata) but he and most of his family members were killed by Lord Rama for their evil doings. So, the first lesson of Ramayana is that everyone is equal before law.

Lord Rama visited Shabri, called her a mother (mata) and ate food from her hands. He lived for years among tribals. So the second lesson is that a true Rambhakta should never discriminate against SC/STs or Dalits.

The writer is the Ambassador of India to Finland. The opinion expressed here is his own

Copyright © 2001 - All Rights Reserved.

a r t i c l e s    o n    c o n v e r s i o n