Textual chaos in the Book of Genesis.

In the Book of Genesis, in the Old Testament, we learn about Creation and how God made mankind:

 

[1:26] Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
[1:27] So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.

 

It is clear that humankind was created in the image of God; and God made man and woman simultaneously; yet this narrative changes in Chapter 2 and quite a different story is told about the Creation of humankind. The latter text is a kind of an illogical intervention to the sense of causality which is present in Chapter 1. In terms of textual cohesion, it is obvious to the reader that the first two chapters of the Book of Genesis do not necessarily hold together.

Should we tell the Vatican our little secret about God?

Religion is all about God; it is all about “revealed knowledge”; but and the BIG fact remains – why should the notion of a God that is good, as it is in the Biblical context, be so rabidly misogynous?

 

Now, we can all agree that the Catholic Church will not change its stance of what the Bible is; and the harrowing truth is that the Bible also affects and determines how societies and cultures behave. The Catholic Church will not allow any variants. And so, do we have to wait till the Catholic church becomes a minority religion and subsequently, a relic institution – lost to the world? Instead, we can argue, once the Bible is rewritten to erase the misogynous parts out, then there will be other variants of Christianity that will rise up, use the revised Bible and the same motifs and stories of the Bible.

 

Unless, of course, the Vatican is willing to listen; but then – one can argue – who really cares about an institution that seems to have lost its purpose? Why else would it not have signed CEDAW ( The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); it was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, and can be seen as an international bill of rights for women.

Why exactly should the Biblical God be misogynous?

There is a need to engage with all religious texts and conceptualize ways to re-read them; doing so will allow for parity across society.

 

The Book of Genesis and the Garden of Eden.

 

In the beginning, the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters; and this Spirit is what created the heavens and earth and everything around. We forget, when we read about God, that this notion of the Divine is not tangible, but a spiritual Being. And we have to keep in mind that this is the central point of the Bible; namely – that Adam and Eve would have been aware of this spiritual Being called God; the fact that they did not find the need to cover themselves: “Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” – implies that to them, the tangible aspects of existence did not really matter. What did matter was that they were aware of being connected to God and to each other spiritually. This awareness of the Spirit of God – is what it means to be in the Garden of Eden. They were aware that God moved Its Spirit to create the world.

 A common refrain that is evident in the first few passages of the Genesis is the following: “and God saw that it was good.” We are introduced to a parameter of what comprises goodness; what exactly does it mean to be good?

The question we need to ask is this: how can a God that is good be misogynous? It does not make sense.

Why religion got it all wrong? Conceptualizing new methods of reading.

Why religion got it all wrong? Conceptualizing new methods of reading.

 

Literary scholars need to throw open the doors of what texts constitute the study of literari-ness and the methods of doing so; such an act will allow the discipline to examine and interrogate socio-discursive practices which affect the lives of women all over the world.  Religious texts codify culture and gender norms and it is imperative that literary scholars engage with these texts that perpetuate and maintain oppressive hegemonic institutions.

 

The Hindu Shastras.

 

The Indian Constitution in 1947, declared equality as a Fundamental Right. Equality was constructed as being accessible to all and did not take into account that each individual, being located within different social realities, was not similarly positioned to enact this concept. This rhetoric, which existed at the discursive level, did not affect women materially. The Indian Government’s commitment to equality was seriously challenged and critiqued in 1974 when Towards Equality: Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India, a report on the status of women, was published. (Towards Equality: Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India. New Delhi: Govt. of India, Ministry of Education & Social Welfare, Dept. of Social Welfare, 1974.)

 

Even if women are given parity in the realm of the polity and the state, would the value systems and the cultural standards change? The system of “religious tradition” was mentioned as being a root cause that contributed to maintaining the cultural values, but no means were mentioned in the report that would systematically address ways to undo these value systems. If, as the report Towards Equality stated, a “woman’s role and her position in society” in India is determined by cultural values which in turn are defined by “religious traditions,” then we have to examine the nature of these religious institutions; interrogating the Hindu shastras will allow us to conclude that they are incredibly sex-ist and caste-ist in nature and unconstitutional. 

 

What we can take as a given is that these texts that constitute our Hindu shastras are unreliable with numerous variants existing simultaneously; it, therefore, stands to reason that there is no authentic version that we can refer to as being the original. Who is to tell as to which part comprised “revealed knowledge” and which sections were subsequent add-ons? - for all we know – these texts might have been amended and changes made as they were handed down generations.

The Oriental scholar, Max Mueller, in the introductory comments to his translations of the Upanishads, (Different Classes of Upanishads) wrote about the numerous manuscripts he had to consult, and how these texts had many variants.  (Sacred Books of the East; Clarendon Press, 1879.)

                                                                          

One Upanishad may give the correct, another an evidently corrupt reading, yet it does not follow that the correct reading may not be the result of an emendation. It is quite clear that a large mass of traditional Upanishads must have existed before they assumed their present form. Where two or three or four Upanishads contain the same story, told almost in the same words, they are not always copied from one another, but they have been settled independently, in different localities, by different teachers, it may be, for different purposes.

 

Lastly, the influence of Sâkhâs or schools may have told more or less on certain Upanishads. Thus the Maitrâyanîya-upanishad, as we now possess it, shows a number of irregular forms which even the commentator can account for only as peculiarities of the Maitrâyanîya-sâkhâ. That Upanishad, as it has come down to us, is full of what we should call clear indications of a modern and corrupt age. It contains in VI, 37, a sloka from the Mânava-dharma-sâstra, which startled even the commentator, but is explained away by him as possibly found in another Sâkhâ, and borrowed from there by Manu. It contains corruptions of easy words which one would have thought must have been familiar to every student. … But here again the commentator explains that another Sâkhâ reads 'vigighatsa, and that avipâsa is to be explained by means of a change of letters as apipâsa. Corruptions, therefore, or modern elements which are found in one Upanishad, as handed down in one Sâkhâ, do not prove that the same existed in other Sâkhâs, or that they were found in the original text.

 

Biblical texts.

 

In a similar manner, why should we accept the misogyny that seems to be the bedrock of the Biblical texts? What is surprising is that no one questions as to why exactly should the Bible be so rabidly misogynous? Can we argue that as it is impossible for there to be a single definitive text of the Bible, we should be able to rewrite out those parts which really are nonsensical and misogynous.

 

An epistemic shift occurred in Europe, in the modern period, with the introduction of printing presses where diverse occupational groups worked with each other in the new workshops that were set up by the early printers. Elisabeth Eisenstein describes the numerous processes that were involved: “The advent of printing led to the creation of a new kind of shop structure; to a regrouping which entailed closer contacts among diversely skilled workers and encouraged new forms of cross-cultural interchange.” Thus it was not uncommon to find university professors and “former priests among early printers or former abbots serving as editors or correctors,” thus, coming into closer contact with metal workers and mechanics. (Elizabeth Eisenstein, “Defining the Initial Shift: Some Features of Print Culture” in The Book History Reader, ed. David Finkelstein and Alistair McCleery (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), pp. 156-157.) As the Bible was being set into print, who is to tell the extent to which the abbots and the priests, who now worked in the printing presses in the early modern period, set about fixing and rewriting the text?

 

There is a need to engage with all religious texts and conceptualize ways to re-read them; doing so will allow for parity across society.

---

 

Extracts from the Adhyatma Ramayana.

Extracts from CONVERSATION BETWEEN RAMA AND NARADA in the AYODHYA KANDAM (ADHYATMA RAMAYANA)

Conversation Between Rama and Narada. Verses: 9-30.

Thereupon Narada said to Rama, the lover of all devotees: “O Rama! Why art Thou trying to misguide me by such words, as if Thou wert just a worldly man?

O All-pervading One! Thy statement that Thou art one involved in Samsara is true, indeed, in a way. For, is not Maya, the First Cause of the whole universe, Thy Consort? 

It is by Thy mere presence that she generates Brahma and the other offspring of hers. It is with Thee as her support that Maya, constituted of the three Gunas, subsists. It is by Thy support that she constantly gives birth to three types of beings – those that are Sattvika (Sukla or white), Rajasa (Lohita or red) and Tamasa (Krishna or black). … To put it briefly, whatever female form is there in this universe, that the auspicious Sita is. And whatever male form there is, that Thou art, O scion of the Raghu’s line.

…

Pure Consciousness has three adjuncts – gross, subtle and causal. When identified with these, Pure Consciousness is called Jiva, Cosmic or individual, Devoid of them He is the Supreme Lord. O the noblest of Raghu’s line! Thou art the Pure Consciousness, the Witness – … The whole universe has originated from Thee; it remains established in Thee; and it dissolves in Thee.

Therefore, design to bless me, O Lord! and let not Thy Maya delude me.” 

 AND WHY, AS LITERARY CRITICS,  WE SHOULD RE-READ THE ABOVE EXTRACT? 

 

1. Gender roles are defined in a prescriptive manner; the above statements which refer to the Absolute Divine make that clear. Sri Rama is God incarnate; and it is through his presence and his support that Maya, his Consort, is the First Cause of the Universe.

   

2.     Sri Rama is construed as being Pure Consciousness and the whole Universe as having “originated” from Him. This is undoubtedly, problematic.

 

3.     In the Kena Upanishad, Brahman or Pure Consciousness is referred to as “It”; on the other hand, in the Katha Upanishad, a shift occurs whereby, Brahman, or realization of Brahman, is seen within a gendered parameter:

“That Purusa indeed, who keeps awake and goes on creating desirable things even when the senses fall asleep, is pure; and He is Brahman, and He is called the Immortal. All the worlds are fixed on Him; none can transcend Him. This indeed is that. (Part II. Canto II. Verse 8)

Textual slippages in the Hindu shastras: oops!

The focus is to construe Hindu religious texts as literature, and examine them within a gendered analytical framework. What prevents us from examining the Upanishadic or the Vedic texts within a literary or a gendered perspective? If the basis of religion is “revealed knowledge,” which was made evident to men – then is it not obvious that these notions of the Absolute Being would but be defined within gender inflected terminologies?

Let me explain with an example from an Upanishad. In the Aitareya Upanishad, the first stanza reads in the following manner:

“Om! In the beginning this was but the Absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. It thought, ‘Let Me create the world.’”

We have to keep in mind that the Vedic texts are partially truthful – they are correct in their explanations on the notion of Absolute Consciousness which becomes matter, and there is no gender ascribed to this Absolute Being. The “Absolute Self” is denoted within gender neutral terms and is referred to as “It.”

But there is a slippage which occurs in the Vedic texts, making these texts suspect: it reveals the fact that those who were writing about this kind of revealed, divine knowledge were men and their interests are evident in how the notion of Absolute Consciousness is defined and described. In the same Vedic text, we will find gender specific characteristics of the Absolute Being. The second stanza of the Aitreya Upanishad reads in the following manner:

“He created these worlds, viz. ambhas, marici, mara and apah. That which is beyond heaven is ambhas. Heaven is its support. The sky is marici. The earth is mara. The worlds that are below are the apah.”

A shift occurs whereby, “It” becomes “He”: and we all assume, and accept, that the Absolute Being has to be male. To follow this statement to its conclusion, we can state that as the Vedic texts equate the “Absolute Self” with the masculine, men are seen as being agents; in the second part of the Aitreya Upanishad, the first stanza reads: “In man indeed is the soul first conceived”; the implication is that men are agents in determining the birth of children while women are mere passive receptacles.

Biological sciences make use of these dichotomies, and feminists have critiqued how biology (which should be an objective science) makes use of the dominant trope of  the “passive” female egg and the “active” male sperm. It is a notion that was also used by Aristotle and by St. Thomas (M.C. Horowitz, 1976, Aristotle and Woman).

There is no attempt by any religious institution to undress these entrenched misogyny that exists in Hinduism; and these dominant mainstream institutions simply reiterate the status quo. If we pick up a random text on religion that has been published by a well-recognized, religious institution, like the Ramakrishna Mission (that is seen as epitomising modern Hinduism), we find a similar trope operating as the subtext.

In How is a man Reborn, a short text that was published in 1970, by Advaita Ashrama, the publishing house of the Ramakrishna Mission, Swami Satprakashananda makes use of the same above mentioned dichotomy (pp.43-48); he cites instances from the Chandogya Upanishad, the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, one Dr. Sturtevant, the Aitareya Upanishad and Sankara to prove the same point, whereby women are seen as passive agents whose only role in society is to procreate while men and sons do all the active work.

We need to rewrite the Hindu religious texts, and read them as literary artefacts, and in the process, make them gender neutral.

Through the looking glass of gender: reading the Hindu shastras.

The focus of literary studies needs to change; and we, who live in the erstwhile colonies, need to talk about literary studies outside the dominant referential analytical framework: i.e. on how, once-upon-a-time, the discipline of English was part of the “imperial mission of educating and civilizing colonial subjects in the literature and thought of England, a mission that in the long run served to strengthen Western cultural hegemony in enormously complex ways.” (Gauri Viswanathan, Masks of Conquest. Literary Study and British Rule in India (New Delhi: Oxford University Press) According to her, “a great deal of strategic maneuvering went into the creation of a blueprint for social control in the guise of a humanistic program of enlightenment”; and the English literary text functioned as a surrogate Englishman in his “highest and most perfect state” becoming a “mask for economic exploitation.”

When we ask the question as to what comprises a literary text, we should be willing to venture into territories that have not been examined before and this would allow us access to a wide variety of primary texts.  I would argue that the focus of literary scholars should be on re-reading religious texts and undoing the underlying misogyny. Religion affects all aspects of our lives – and if we want a change to take place in the realm of the public around the world, we need to dismantle/re-write the existing religious texts. If we don’t, then the very safe, glass-haven, spaces of academic institutions can just be blown apart by religious fundamentalism in the very near future.

If we examine the Upanishadic texts, we realize that they are composed out of a series of narratives, which make use of numerous literary techniques.

For example, in the Aiteraya Upanishad, there is a story about creation:

Om! In the beginning this was but the Absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. It thought, ‘Let Me create the world.’”

It created these worlds….It thought, ‘These then are the worlds. Let Me create the protectors of the worlds.’ Having gathered up a (lump of the) human form from the water itself, It gave shape to it.

The Upanishadic text moves on and talks about the five senses and the need to nourish and sustain the body, which has been formed out of spirit:

It [The Absolute Self] thought, ‘This, then, are the senses and the deities of the senses. Let Me create food for them. …

This food, that was created, turned back and attempted to run away. It tried to take it up with speech. It did not succeed in taking it up through speech. If It had succeeded in taking it up with the speech, then one would have been contented merely by talking of food.

And the narrative continues in this semi-humorous manner; where The Absolute Self analyses the need for “food” and the process which would have been involved in consuming the food; the analysis has a to-and-fro movement which borders on being self analytical. Humour lies in the whole situation where the Absolute Self examines the nature of “food” that the newly created human body has to consume; “food” tries to run away and “speech” attempts to run after it but fails. The verse concludes in a self-deprecating manner, by saying that this failure was needed because if “speech” had succeeded, then we would have been satisfied by talking about food.

We cannot ignore the fact these texts would have reflected the values system of that time period, and this explains the misogyny that is the dominant rubric within which the text is written. There are verses in the Aiteraya Upanishad which call out the very specific gender roles that are involved in the family structure; women have to be mothers to sons and that is the only role that can be ascribed to them:

She, the nourisher, becomes fit to be nourished [protected]. The wife bears that embryo (before the birth). He (the father) protects the son at the very start, soon after his birth. That he protects the son at the very beginning, just after birth, thereby he protects his own self for the sake of the continuance of these worlds. For thus is the continuance of these world ensured. That is his second birth.

As literary scholars, our focus should be on not only interpreting these texts within a literary framework of analysis, but also dismantling these misogynous renditions of the Upanishadic texts. If religion is seen as embodying revealed knowledge, that is immutable, then we, as literary scholars, need to change that perspective.

The seriousness of this work should not be undermined; religion dictates all aspects of our lives – public, private, institutional and secular. The misogyny in religion (that operates in an a-historical manner) spills over onto our societal value systems that undermines the secularism in our everyday lives.

Texts do not work in isolation; they emerge from and work within social systems. Why should the Upanishadic texts, that were written thousands of years ago, still dictate our social behavior in the present?

lets talk ...

The unholy alliance of literary studies, religious texts and legal theory.

CEDAW AND THE LEGITIMACY OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS: towards ending misogyny in institutionalised religion. 

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) was adopted in 1979 by the UN General Assembly, and can be seen as an international bill of rights for women. All countries that have accepted the Convention are compelled to follow up with a series of measures that would end all forms of discrimination against women. Any country that has ratified or acceded to the Convention, is legally and morally obliged to ensure that women are not discriminated against, or oppressed.

If the purpose of CEDAW is to end all acts of discrimination against women by organizations, then we would be compelled to include organizations that propagate religion in the public domain as mostly and often, these religious bodies propound theology that is comfortably couched in misogyny, thereby validating a heightened sense of machismo as being endemic to human behaviour. 

Undoubtedly and what is obvious is that any nation that is a participant to CEDAW is legally bound to examine and interrogate the role that is played by these religious organizations in normalising misogyny and in also disseminating these ideas in the public domain on a daily basis.

Feminist scholars can cry themselves hoarse in trying to understand the nature of institutionalised misogyny that permeates all aspects of civil, social and religious life and has been seen as the status quo since times immemorial. On similar lines, development theorists and economists have tried to address how poverty works in order to alleviate it. But if we refuse to acknowledge that religion which is the bedrock of all societies- is the perpetrator in enabling this kind of gender-class oppression – then it is a losing battle that feminists and economists wage as they analyse the origins of social inequalities.

Within the Indian context, any institution/organization that propagates the Hindu religious texts – is complicit in acts of perpetuating misogyny in an institutionalised manner. Why is it that feminists and economists and development scholars never analyse how these religious institutions work in creating a social order which entrenches misogyny in the psyche of all citizens? If India is a signatory to CEDAW, should not the nation also ensure that all organizations – religious and secular – be not involved in any form of discrimination against women?

CEDAW IN THE NON-HINDU CONTEXT.

ALL COUNTRIES WHICH ARE SIGNATORIES TO CEDAW are legally bound to adhere to its rules that aim towards undoing all oppressive and discriminatory practises against women. The implication is that no institution – secular or religious – can propound and propagate any misogyny ridden dictums (theological or otherwise) in the public domain

If we consider how religious institutions of Christianity and Islam continue with propagating theology which in no way attempts to undo the underlying misogyny that permeates all aspects of these religious institutions – then we are compelled o question as to why these realms of religion are never interrogated

If a country is a signatory to CEDAW, then the Judiciary of that nation is legally bound to closely monitor the nature of what happens in the domain of religion, and what exactly are these religious institutions propagating. It would be erroneous to conflate the theological aspects of those religions with what would essentially comprise temporal social modes of being that are also seen as comprising “revealed knowledge”. Religious authorities need to be chastised by the Judiciary of all the nations that are signatories to CEDAW as they propound theology that does not interrogate the underlying misogyny. Subsequently, these religious institutions need to rewrite these canonical religious texts ensuring that the flagrant misogyny is erased; not doing so would be a legal misdemeanour as it would comprise a violation of CEDAW.

REWRITING THE BIBLE.

Christian and Islamic theologians need to be willing to accept the fact that the Biblical tales of Creation and the Bible itself – all refer to partial versions of what is “revealed knowledge”. Therefore, they also need to be willing to revise these texts. For example, the stories about the Garden of Eden, the Fall from Grace and the role of women in bringing in Sin to the world - need to be rewritten. The Garden of Eden can refer to a period when mankind was aware of their spiritual connections with Absolute Consciousness or Brahman, and the Fall from Grace as being a condition where they lost this awareness forever. Rewriting the Bible in this manner would completely erase the rampant misogyny which forms the crux of, and is a dominant interpretative paradigm, within Christianity and Islam.

ARE RELIGIOUS TEXTS ILLEGAL AS THEY CONSTITUTE HATE SPEECH?

The purpose would be to open up the realm of religious discourse into the public domain of the secular; if we take these texts into our hands – then, we should be able to re-write them and do away with those parts that are misogynous/ caste-ist and are fundamentally unconstitutional. We need to petition to the governments of our respective countries to ensure that religious institutions comply with the laws of the land, and if the State is a signatory to CEDAW – the nation complies with it and does not allow any institution (religious or otherwise) to violate it.

A tradition of theological debates within Hinduism in 18th C. Bengal.

Debates were made possible through print and they also spilled into the realm of native intellectuals and theologians. Rammohun positioned himself against many of the existing well known pandits who were associated with British establishments. Many Indian pandits, attached with the Baptist Mission Press, also printed books in Bengali  that were of a fictional nature. For example, Batris Simhasan was published by Mrityunjar Tarkalankar in 1802. But more importantly, Rammohun was involved in theological debate with Mrityunjay Vidyalankar, who was also the head pandit of the government college at Calcutta around 1817. Mrityunjay’s Vedanta Chandrika (translated into English as An Apology for the Present System of Hindu Worship) was critiqued by Rammohun in A Second Defense of the Monotheistical System of the Veds (Bhattacharyer Sahit Vichar). In this realm of print, Rammohun engaged in debate with certain brands of Christianity and Hinduism. There was a blurry line between enemies and friends.

We Need To .....

We hope to open up the realm of religious discourse into the public domain of the secular; if we – the people – take these texts into our hands – then, we can do away with those parts that are misogynous and caste-ist and are fundamentally unconstitutional. We, the citizens, need to petition to the government to ensure that religious institutions comply with the laws of the land, and as India is a signatory to CEDAW – the nation complies with it and does not allow any institution (religious or otherwise) to violate it.

Towards Equality: A Government of India Report (1974)

The Indian Constitution in 1947, declared equality as a Fundamental Right. It also guaranteed equal protection under the law, provided equal opportunities in public employment, and prohibited discrimination in public places. Equality was constructed as being accessible to all and did not take into account that each individual, being located within different social realities, was not similarly positioned to enact this concept. This rhetoric, which existed at the discursive level, did not affect women materially. The Indian Government’s commitment to equality was seriously challenged and critiqued in 1974 when Towards Equality: Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India, a report on the status of women, was published. In 1971, the Ministry of Education and Social Welfare had appointed a committee “to examine the constitutional, legal and administrative provisions that have a bearing on the social status of women, their education and employment” and to assess the impact of these provisions. The research and it’s publication was also, partly, in response to a United Nations request to all countries to prepare reports on the status of women for International Women’s Year, scheduled for 1975.11 The report concluded by stating that women’s status had not improved since Independence, and is worth quoting at length:
Social structures, cultural norms, and value systems influence social expectations regarding the behavior of both men and women, and determine a woman’s role and her position in society to a great extent. The most important of these institutions are the systems of descent, family and kinship, marriage, and religious traditions: … The normative standards do not change at the same pace as changes in other forms of social organization brought about by such factors as technological and educational advance, urbanization, increasing populations.. .This gap explains the frequent failure of law and educational policy to produce the desired effect on social attitudes.

In this report to the government of India, the members of the committee, concluded by recommending (amongst other things) “establishment of women’s panchayats at the village level with autonomy and resources of their own for the management and administration of welfare and development programs.” This issue was also problematised by numerous female legislators and feminist activists.
Even if women are given parity in the realm of the polity and the state, would the value systems and the cultural standards change? The system of “religious tradition” was mentioned as being a root cause that contributed to maintaining the cultural values, but no means were mentioned in the report that would systematically address ways to undo these value systems. If, as the report Towards Equality stated, a “woman’s role and her position in society” in India is determined by cultural values which in turn are defined by “religious traditions,” then we have to examine the nature of these religious institutions; interrogating the Hindu shastras will allow us to conclude that they are incredibly sex-ist and caste-ist in nature and unconstitutional.

How we, that is, women – eat, breathe, dress and conduct ourselves and the kinds of labor that we are allowed to perform – are codified and seen as intrinsic to the Hindu shastras. The realm of religion, indeed, is the privilege of men. And indeed, it would not be salacious to argue that self-identifying Brahmin men and those who function in the religious institutions and are the so-called custodians of Hindu dharma are mostly myopic; they are unable to distinguish between what constitutes “revealed knowledge” about Existence and Brahman and Creation, and temporal gender-caste based social modes of being. What prevents the government of India (which is also a signatory to CEDAW) from slapping legal cases against these religious institutions as they propound unconstitutional rhetoric that, in all respects, violates our Fundamental Rights that are embedded within the Indian Constitution?

(Towards Equality: Report of the Committee on the Status of Women in India. New Delhi: Govt. of India, Ministry of Education & Social Welfare, Dept. of Social Welfare, 1974.)

Collated texts in the Hindu shastras?

The question that should trouble us is: why do we allow hegemonic institutions to perpetuate a system of systemic misrepresentation about the subalterns? As religious institutions [read brahmanical] are busy denying agency to the subaltern, it falls upon us to take these texts and re-engage with them. The Hindu shastras cover a wide spectrum of issues, and the hegemonic institutions seem too dim-witted for they never question the specter of the absurd within these texts.

In 1884, Pandit Shivnat Sastri, gave a lecture on the caste system at the Sadharon Brahmo Samaj in Calcutta, and questioned the nature of “revealed knowledge” within the Hindu shastras, arguing that were many textual interpolations that took place over centuries; he writes:

Of all books, the earliest were the Vedas, and oldest among them was the Rig Veda … the Vedic mantras were not all composed at one time, but some of them a thousand years later than others.
The most ordinary students of Sanskrit will perceive that the above extract [Pandit Shastri cites a lengthy passage on caste from the Purusa sukta] from the Rig Veda is written in modern Sanskrit. The other mantras of the Rig Veda are not in modern Sanskrit; even with the aid of commentators it is often difficult to understand them. Their grammar and their metre differ; and greater number of words have become obsolete. How comes it about that the fragment of extracted from the Purusha Sukta is in intelligible modern Sanskrit? One must infer that this mantra was composed long after the rest. Professor Max Mueller, and other European scholars devoted to the study of the Vedas, have also shown this to be a very much later composition, imbedded in the Rig Veda.

If we accept the above proposition as a given, then we would simultaneously work towards ensuring that revised editions of the Hindu shastras are written, where the rampant misogyny and caste-ist discourses are erased. These texts on “revealed knowledge” are not absolute, but in fact, have been constructed over a time period of centuries. Literary scholars and postcolonial theorists can wring themselves into knots, trying to recuperate the voices of the subaltern, but unless we acknowledge that for centuries, discourses on the subaltern have diligently denied them any agency, we will really not find any answer. If we consider these texts as having gone through many revision and amendations over centuries as they were handed down orally or through manuscripts, then we should be able to sift through what is “revealed knowledge” and what could essentially be defined as socio-cultural representations that fundamentally deny the subaltern agency.

We need to embrace these texts on Hindu shastras within the pantheon of what constitutes literari-ness, and re-read them and rewrite them.

Documented history: Critiques of Hinduism in the early 19th C. in Bengal, India.

In the first two decades of the nineteenth century, Rammohun Roy worked on translating the Vedantic texts. In 1815, he translated the Vedas into Bengali; in 1816-1817, he wrote the Abridgement of the Vedanta in English, Bengali and Hindusthani, and translated the Upanishads into English and Bengali. Rammohun was supremely aware of his readership, and churned out Bengali and English translations with great rapidity. He was able to move between different “publics”. About this period of activity, he wrote:

I have found the doctrines of Christ more conducive to moral principles, and better adapted for the use of rational beings, than any others … and have also found Hindus in general more superstitious and miserable, both in performance of their religious rites and in their domestic concerns, than the rest of the known nations on the earth; I therefore, … translated their most revered theological work, namely Vedant, into Bengali and Hindusthani, and also several chapters of the Ved… I however, in the beginnings of my pursuit, met with the greatest of opposition from their self interested leaders, the Brahmins, and was deserted by my nearest relations; I consequently felt extremely melancholy; in that critical situation, the only comfort that I had was the consoling and rational conversation of European friends, specially those in England and Scotland.

The realm of readers for his English works comprised Europeans; no natives before him had written for such a readership, and therefore, there was no precedence as to what was expected from him as a native writer, writing in English for the Europeans. He was not hesitant in condemning the Brahmins, referring to them in the third person and in the process separating himself from the community of Hindus, and even voicing appreciation at how he had been received by the Europeans. In most ways, he was a native cultural mediator, making the east and his own culture comprehensible to the European reader.

His English works on the Vedanta are as follows: Translation of an Abridgement of the Vedanta (1816), Translation of the Kena Upanishad (1816), Translation of the Isopanishad (1816), Translation of the Mundaka Upanishad (1819), Translation of the Katha Upanishad (1819). It is interesting to speculate on the need for such translations as the English-speaking world would already have been familiar with the Vedantic works of William Jones. In the preface to the Translation of the Kuth Opunishud of the Ujoor Veda, Rammohun makes it very clear as to why he wrote these translations:

I had some time ago the satisfaction of publishing a translation of the Katha-Upanishad of the Yajur-veda into Bengalee; and of distributing copies of it as widely as my circumstances would allow for the purposes of diffusing Hindoo scriptural knowledge among the adherents of that religion. The present publication is intended to assist the European community in forming their opinion respecting Hindoo Theology.

This statement is revealing, drawing attention to the nature of print in its early years, and how Rammohun made use of the power of print. William Jones and the scholars of the East India Company had worked with Hindu pandits in explaining the nature of eastern religion to the West; the Baptist missionaries had also spread their version of Hinduism by deriding it. Rammohun wanted to combat these renditions of Hinduism. As we unwrap Rammohun’s comment on why he had published these translations, we learn about the nature of his intended English and native readership, and the reasons why his works were important. First of all, he makes it clear that his native, Bengali-reading readers were not well versed in his version of Hinduism; therefore, he made use of a strategy that was quite expensive and he must have picked up from the missionaries—free distribution of pamphlets among the Bengali speaking Hindus so that they could improve their “scriptural knowledge”. The missionaries were busy doing something similar and were also disseminating tracts in Bengali, but their focus was on ridiculing Hindu practices. The missionaries described Hinduism as originating from the devil, and Rammohun, on the other hand, proclaimed that his agenda was on teaching scriptural Hinduism to the Hindus. On the other hand, the English translations were meant for the Europeans who would to some degree have been familiar with the translations of William Jones’ version of Hinduism. Rammohun was a native, explaining his own religious systems to the Europeans and his credibility lay in this fact. He was almost a pandit who was well versed in the ways of the Europeans and made sense of the new systemic and institutional changes that were taking place.

Precedents.

Rammohun Roy’s Vedantic works can be described as the first Vedantic commentaries in a vernacular that were written for a Hindu, non-Sanskrit speaking Indian readership. (“Translation of an Abridgement of The Vedant establishing the Unity of the Supreme Being,” in The English Works of Raja Rammohun Roy. Part II, pp. 59-60.) He was aware of this as draws attention to this fact in A Defence of Hindoo Theism, “I must remark, however, that there is no translation of the Vedas into any of the modern languages of Hindoostan with which I am acquainted.” His works are exegeses on the commentaries of Shankaracharya and have a precedence in Baladeva Bidyabhusan’s Govindabhasya and Isabhasya, which were the first Bengali commentaries that were written in the eighteenth century. The only exception was Dara Shukoh’s translations two hundred years ago around 1641. Dara Shukoh was the oldest son of Jahangir, and attracted a liberal courtly crowd of scholars, imperial officers and nobles who followed the eclectic ideology of Akbar

Religious institutions that preach misogyny ridden dictums are unconstitutional in India.

How we, that is, women – eat, breathe, dress and conduct ourselves and the kinds of labor that we are allowed to perform – are codified and seen as intrinsic to the Hindu shastras. The realm of religion, indeed, is the privilege of men. And indeed, it would not be salacious to argue that self-identifying Brahmin men and those who function in the religious institutions and are the so-called custodians of Hindu dharma are mostly myopic; they are unable to distinguish between what constitutes “revealed knowledge” about Existence and Brahman and Creation, and temporal gender-caste based social modes of being. What prevents the government of India (which is also a signatory to CEDAW) from slapping legal cases against these religious institutions as they propound unconstitutional rhetoric that, in all respects, violates our Fundamental Rights that are embedded within the Indian Constitution?

________________________________________

The larger question, though, is: can we ever take it for a given that what we know, in a definitive manner, as being central to the Hindu shastras can be construed as being infallible? – for all we know – these texts might have been amended and changes made as they were handed down generations. In the preface to his version of Manavadharma, Sir William Jones wrote about the textual variations that existed and how he collated different versions that were available in manuscript form to arrive at his final text:

At length appeared KULLU’KA BHATTA; who, after a painful course of study and the collation of numerous manuscripts, produced a work, of which it may, perhaps, be said very truly, that it is the shortest, yet the most luminous, the least ostentatious, yet the most learned, the deepest, yet the most agreeable, commentary ever composed on any author [namely, Manu] ancient or modern, European or Asiatic. The Pandits care so little for genuine chronology, that none of them can tell me the age of KULLU’KA, whom they always name with applause; but he informs us himself, that he was a Brahmin of the Varéndra tribe, whose family had been long settled in Gaur or Bengal, but that he had chosen his residence among the learned on the banks of the holy river at Ka’si. His text and interpretation I have almost implicitly followed, though I had myself collated many copies of MANU, and among them a manuscript of a very ancient date: …

We can arrive at the obvious conclusion that William Jones consulted many textual variations of the Manusmriti, and if so, the implication is that there was no single authoritative text. If these texts that constitute our Hindu shastras are unreliable with numerous variants existing simultaneously, then it stands to reason that there is no authentic version that we can refer to as being the original. Who is to tell as to which part comprised “revealed knowledge” and which sections were subsequent add-ons?

Theological debates in print in the early 18th C. in Bengal.

Theological debate in print

Rammohun Roy’s brand of Hinduism and commentaries on the Bible were unfavourably received by many, and often his critics would target him using printed tracts. Rammohun had ready answers for all his critics, be they conservative Hindu pandits or missionaries, through his prolific use of printed pamphlets and tracts. The print-induced “public” was redefined in most ways by Rammohun. An instance of how theological disputes and discussions would have taken place in a pre-print age is evident in the formation and operation of the Atmiya Sabha. In 1815, Rammohun started the Atmiya Sabha, or Friendly Association, with a small group of friends. It met once a week, and its activities comprised chanting of hymns that were written by Rammohun and his friends, and the recitation of texts from the Hindu scriptures. Sivaprasad Misra, Rammohun’s pandit, was the chief reciter. The meetings were not public; among the attendees can be mentioned Dwarkanath Tagore, Brajamohan Mazumdar, Haladhar Bose, Nandakisore Bose, and Rajnarayan Sen. Despite the institutional character of the Atmiya Sabha, it was a discursive space for debate, and is representative of the pre print and oral public spaces which functioned and allowed for theological debates. Such kinds of socio-theological discussions were transferred onto print as a result of the emergence of a plethora of pamphlets and journals; Christian missionaries and Hindu orthodox pandits connected to the East India Company joined the fray.

Conservative Hindus were critical of Rammohun’s brand of Hinduism. In December 1816, the Madras Courier carried a letter written by one Sankara Sastri, who was the head English teacher in Madras Government College. He was extremely critical of Rammohun’s propagation of Hinduism. Rammohun replied to this letter in 1817 by publishing A Defence of Hindoo Theism where he wrote:

Before I attempt to reply to the observations that the learned gentlemen, who signs himself Sankara Sastri, has offered in his letter of the 26th December last, addressed to the Editor of the Madras Courier, on the subject of an article published in the Calcutta Gazette, and on my translation of an abridgement of the Vedanta and of the two chapters of the Vedas, I beg to be allowed to express the disappointment I have felt in receiving from a learned Brahman controversial remarks on Hindoo Theology written in a foreign language, as it is the invariable practice of the natives of all provinces of Hindoostan to hold their discussions on such subjects in Sanskrit, which is the learned language common to all of them, and in which they may naturally be expected to convey their ideas with perfect correctness and greater facility than in any foreign tongue; nor need it be alleged that, by adopting this established channel of controversy, the opportunity of appealing to public opinion on the subject must be lost, as a subsequent translation from the Sanskrit into English may sufficiently serve that purpose.

Rammohun displays surprise that English was the chosen medium for a theological debate between two learned pandits as Sanskrit was the accepted mode of discussion but he accepts the choice of language. English was often used by native intellectuals, and in the process, European readers were drawn into these theological debates. Mrityunjay Tarkalankar, the chief pandit connected to the College of Fort William and the finest scholar of Sanskrit in Bengal, also wrote against Rammohun in Vedantachandrika, which was subsequently translated into An Apology for the Present System of Hindu Worship in 1817. Rammohun’s reply was A Second Defence of The Monotheistical System of The Vedas In Reply to An Apology For the Present State of Hindoo Worship in 1817. 

He wrote:

Two publications only have yet appeared with the professed object of defending Hindoo idolatry against the arguments which I have adduced from the Vedanta and other sacred authorities, in proof of the erroneousness of that system. To the first, which appeared in a Madras journal, my reply has been for some time before the public. The second, which is the object of the present answer, and is supposed to be the production of a learned Brahman now residing in Calcutta, was printed both in Bengali and in English; and I have therefore been under the necessity of preparing a reply in both of those languages. That which was intended for the perusal of my countrymen, issued from the press a few weeks ago. For my European readers I have thought it advisable to make some additional remarks to those contained in the Bengali publication, which I hope will tend to make my arguments more clear and intelligible to them than a bare translation would do.

Rammohun distinguishes between his native readers, who were addressed differently from his English readers. Even those theological debates which were addressed to natives, as a result of the use of English printed texts soon included Europeans as readers. The realm of Hindu pandits using print was contiguous to the realm of English print being produced by the Britishers, and oftentimes English was used by the natives in order to include the Europeans in their theological debates.