From: vivek@ecst.csuchico.edu (Vivek R. Prabhu)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian,soc.culture.pakistan
Subject: Re: Sati and Gita (Re:Sati system because of Islam (Gita's Teachings)).
Date: 26 Dec 92 01:15:26 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu

In article <1992Dec25.141913.45901@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> dchatterjee@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>
>  Yes, this is true. *ALL* Muslims are *NOT* Allauddin Khiljis. But, in the
>  times that you are referring to, most of the rulers were. Islamic rule in
>  India, spanning a total of 1000 years, show that there were few Akbars.


I agree with your point here, that barring Akbar, and Sher Shah Suri, most
other Islamic rulers were indeed as bad as they are now in many countries.


>  The actual posting of mine would have been more clear if I mentioned the
>  situation of women in the time of Rajarshi Janak. (You might recall the
>  Rishi Jnagyabalkya and Maitreyi and Gargi. Wome were emancipated and more
>  liberated than the post-Vedic times.) But, then that is also doubtful. I
>  am saying this because if you read the historical account of the last of
>  all glorious Hindu rule - the Gupta dynasty - you can see the elevated
>  postion of women than the days following after that.


Again it is the exploitation of the women, maybe due to their 
physical weakness, and less aggressive nature,  that the same
/** guardians of society **/,  made them a scapegoat of their
repressive measures.

>  
>
>   to investigate why in the times of Mahabharata society was so progressive,
>   while in the following periods, one sees a repressive form of Hindu society
>   - that quite blindly adheres to some rules which are temporal. 
>
>   In fact blind adherence to temporal societal rules does not qualify any
>   progress. Thus, when Manu wrote his treatise, the society was different.
>   As you observe, rulers/ kings should have been more benign not to use the
>   text (manusmriti) literally - advocating that *it is* complete Hinduism.
>
>   This, in general, is the fault of following any set of societal rules (or
>   a defined code of ethics) without any thought to its applicability. 
>
>
>   Vivek, I find this innuendo (accussation) highly objectionable. Show me
>   a place in my original response where I have implied this fact. You are
>   making wild assumptions here. I did say that Gita is used in the legal
>   courts to *identify* one's (Hindu) religious background - before taking
>   an oath. To establish the sanctity of the legal system (in India) courts
>   have established this practice. I don't know, nor I am about to debate
>   over this legal practice, but, this is a fact. This, as I have enquired,
>   defines who belongs to what religious group. Although Hinduism is *NOT*
>   a religion - it is a culture, it is quite hilarious to note that a Hindu
>   in India is *identified* as one who is governed by the set of laws in the
>   code of Manu. Since culture is a dynamic process, I fail to understand why
>   this should be the practice of identifying a Hindu.

Well by taking the definition in the Manusmriti, you tried to prove
the  point that,  that was the fault in society,  which I sought to 
disprove. You quoted the Gita and the Manusmriti in the same breath
and hence,  led me to believe that your interpretation of the texts 
was as you said it was. The second thing is that, though Manusmriti
speaks of the Varna system,  it is essentially a set of guidelines,
and not a codified system of enforcement of societal norms.  I also
would agree with your contention that,  culture being a dynamic and 
evolving process, identification  of who is a Hindu is  that much a 
more difficult exercise, best left to philosophers. 
 
>
>   My reference to Gita was simply to point out that as an alternative, a
>   Hindu in India is *also* identified as one who places faith in the Gita.
>   Probably you could define *exactly* who is a Hindu ? I mean, can I be an
>   atheist and remain a Hindu ? If I only accept the doctrines of Charbak
>   (Lokayat Darshana), then am I a Hindu ? If I don't worship, nor place faith
>   in gurus (mortals) but just do what I think is right - following one's
>   own conscience, then am I a Hindu ? Or, do I *have to* follow some strict
>   rules - regarding worship, rituals etc. and etc. to establish my Hindu
>   credibility ? Can I find places in the Vedas, Upanishads, Gita to identify
>   exactly a sum-total of rules that a Hindu should do from dusk to dawn ????
>   I did not find any. But, yes in the Code of Manu there exists such set of
>   rules. Contrary to what you assert, the Code of Manu is *NOT* misunderstood
>   in modern India. It is used, and, had been used in the past by rulers and
>   monarchs to oppress people. Since the consequences of *arbitrarily* applying


That is precisely what I say, /** misunderstood **/. This is where 
the root of the whole problem. An interpretation of a nature, that
is suitable to one arm of society,  to get its way with the other.


>   as a revolt against the Code of Manu. Am I wrong here ? Was the kingdom of 
>   Rama identifiable according the Code of Manu ????? Was Hastinapur, Dwarka 
>   set up according to the Code of Manu ???? 


This is something that you might find more applicable, but I do not
think the same way, though, everyone can have his/her own opinion.

>
>   Secondly, I find your oblique support for Code of Manu quite amusing, as,
>   re-marriage of widows - that was first institued by Iswar Chandra
>   Vidyasagar, was a direct *revolt* against the Code of Manu. (I have read
>   *fully* the works of Vidyasagar, and, thus recall that Vidyasagar, while
>   reading the Hindu texts and scriptures, found that the code of Manu had been
>   used quite deviously by Brahamanical societies.) The mooting point here is

The moot point is that Ishwarchandra Vidyasagar, interpreted the
guidelines in the Manusmriti,  as  being enforced by the society 
of the time in a repressive manner w.r.t. widows. However,  I am
not prepared to believe that the Manusmriti advocates the denial
of rights of widows to remarry. 

>   that Hinduism is a culture that is fundamentally progressive. So, as I did
>   mention in my earlier posting, when Shankaracharya of some temple advocates
>   the Sati (that occurred in recent times), he *is* doing a severe harm to
>   the society at large. When something is wrong, it *is* necessary to condemn
>   it - probably banish it forever. It is my opinion that this is how society
>   progresses. I also think that rejecting what is antiquated and inapplicable
>   , and, accepting what is new and supportive is also in spirit with the
>   Bhagavat Gita. (" Basangshi, jirnani ..... ") However, I am *not* implying
>   that what is old *must* be rejected. It depends on the applicability.

That again depends on what is prevalent at this time. Some regimes 
notable those in the Middle-East,  go on implementing the barbaric
ways /*** said ***/, to have been advocated by the religious books
before their timee.  However we should encourage a society,  where 
there is a debate about what in our old texts is bad or unsuitable
for the present times, and what is applicable now. The same thing,
is true for say the Indian Constitution. Just because it was a set
of documents written by some people before our times does not give
us the right to dismantle it completely. What we should do,  is to 
be able to amend it from time to time,  depending  on the changing 
of circumstances.


>
>   BTW, I admit that I have not read as much of Vedic scriptures as you, but,
>   any commoner will recognize that Gita does not discuss any typical societal
>   norm. Comparing Gita and code of Manu is thus an act of the ignorant, and, 
>   I have *not* done so in my original response to Ed Crick. Therefore your
>   oblique innuendos to my implying that Gita talks about Sati are mere 
>   conjuring up of facts that borderlines fanaticism. I am sorry, but, that's
>   the way I think you tried making your case.

I am sorry, you have totally miscontrued what I said, and alleging
something, that I have neither done, nor intended to do.


>
>   The major point is that Code of Manu *left enough room* for its misuse. My

I am sorry, you have totally miscontrued what I said, and alleging
something, that I have neither done, nor intended to do.



Regards,
Vivek.

-- 
vivek@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu (Vivek R. Prabhu),
Research Assistant, Systems Engineering Lab., Dept. Of Computer Science, 
School Of Engineering, Computer Science And Technology,
California State University, Chico, California.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.indian