Caste and caste-based discrimination are fundamental realities of Indian life. Almost three-fourths of India’s vast populations belong to castes condemned by the Brahminical religion as ‘low’, having suffered various forms of caste-related oppression for centuries at the hands of the so-called ‘casteshigh’. Yet, this basic fact is completely glossed over in Indian school textbooks, which barely mention the word ‘caste’ or, if they at all do so, glorify the caste system as a supposedly ideal system of division of labour. The ‘low’ castes are thus almost completely invisibilised in the textbooks as they are in almost every walk of life. Along with this, the Vedic or Aryan civilization and the Brahminical religion, which form the very basis of the ideology of caste, are glorified as the epitome of Indian, and, indeed, world, culture and as the bedrock of Indian national identity. Caste-based oppression is particularly rife in Rajasthan, a state where vestiges of feudalism are still very strongly rooted. Yet, social science textbooks prepared by the Rajasthan state educational authorities and used in government schools do not mention the fact at all. Instead, the textbooks glorify Aryan civilisation, the progenitor of caste oppression, presenting it as the ‘golden age’ of Indian history. None of the heroes mentioned in the books as role models for students is a ‘low’ caste. Instead, besides the few non-Hindu figures, they are all ‘high’ caste Hindus, particularly Brahmins, thusreinforcing the tendency to define Indian nationalism in strictly Brahminical terms. The textbooks also mention nothing at all about grovelling poverty and oppression so rife in India and, instead, present a picture of Indian society as a homogenous unit, bereft of caste and class contradictions.

The textbooks clearly identify Hinduism with Brahminism, completely ignoring the fact that there is no such thing as a single Hinduism. They also remain silent on the existence of several traditions, considered in some sense ‘Hindu’, that are definitely anti-Vedic and anti-Brahminical. Seeking to bring together all the different Hindu ‘religions’ under a single, homogenous Brahminical umbrella, the text meant for standard s ix students lays down what it considers to be an authoritative definition of ‘Hinduism’, one which is Vedic and Brahminical in essence. Thus, it says that despite the existence of multiple traditions (panths) ‘all the Hindu panths recognize the Vedas’, ignoring completely the numerous Dalit, Tribal and other non-Savarna traditions that not only do not recognize the Vedas but are also explicitly anti-Vedic. The chapter insists that the ‘Ramayana, Mahabharata and Gita are the main books of the Hindus’, ignoring the vast numbers of ‘Hindus’ who do not recognize these books as theirs as well as the incisive critiques of these texts by Dalit ideologues. It insists that the notion of ‘rebirth’ and ‘idol-worship’ are ‘important beliefs’ of the Hindus, ignoring the numerous ‘Hindu’ traditions that deny these. The standard nine textbook presents Ram and Krishna as ‘avatars’ who, it claims, ‘have most heavily influenced [sarvaddhik prabhavit] Indian lifestyle’, thus conflating Brahminical culture with Indian culture and also denying Dalit and Adivasi critiques of Ram and Krishna as upholders of caste and caste-based oppression. Naturally, there is no mention of Ram’s brutal slaying of the Shudra Shambhukh or Krishna declaring that the varna system was divinely ordained.

Brahminical or Vedic civilisation, which laid the basis of the caste system, is repeatedly referred to in the textbooks as the alleged foundation of Indian culture. Thus, the social science text for class six students declares, ‘The Vedas are the treasury of our culture’, assuming thereby that all Indians must necessarily subscribe to Vedic Hinduism in order to be ‘truly’ Indian. It talks of the Brahmin revivalist Shankaracharya, who played a key role in driving Buddhism out of India, as ‘spreading Indian culture’, by which, of course, is meant Brahminism. The social science studies text meant for students of Class nine has a lengthy chapter on the Vedic civilisation. Expectedly, Vedic culture is described in glowing terms. In line with Hindutva arguments, the authors of the book dismiss the claim that the Aryans were invaders (in order, perhaps, to underline the claim that only the Muslims and the Christian British invaded India) and argue that ‘according to new research India is now being recognised as the original home of the Aryans’. They refer to two obscure writers, Sampoornanand and Avinash Chandra Das (without providing any references to their writings), to press this claim and even to argue that the Aryans migrated from India to other countries and that they did not invade India! They refer to two well-known and hardcore Hindutva ideologues, Rajaram and David Frawley, to argue that the Vedic peoples were the progenitors of ‘an old global civilisation ‘ and that ‘it must be accepted as older than the Egyptian and Sumerian and other ancient civilisations’. The Vedic civilisation is, predictably, portrayed in the chapter in ideal terms, bearing no relation with actual history as numerous scholars, including Marxists and Ambedkarites, have pointed out. Thus, the class six text claims that the Vedas lay great stress ‘on morality and good values, such as helping the poor, the helpless, staying away from bad deeds and immorality and preach that the entire world is one family’. In the Vedic period, it claims, ‘these values were very apparent and people helped one another […] An important feature of Aryan culture was that everyone had mercy for all creatures’. Likewise, the standard nine text says that the Vedas ‘inspired humans to lead a life of simplicity and high thinking’. It argues that the Vedic Aryans selected their rulers democratically and that the main role of the kings was to protect their subjects. In this task they were assisted by Brahmin priests or purohits and army commanders. Denying the well-known fact that the Vedic Aryans ate beef and other forms of meat and consumed alcohol, it claims that they were vegetarians and teetotalers. The texts portray the Aryan caste system as a harmonious, non-oppressive and egalitarian form division of labour, completely contradicting what critical historians have argued. Thus, the standard nine text claims that Vedic society was based on a system of four varnas and that one’s varna was decided on the basis of one’s worth, not birth. It mentions in this regard the Rig Vedic hymn that speaks of the Brahmins, Kshatriyas, Vaishyas and Shudras as similar to different parts of the human body. These are presented as working together harmoniously without any contradiction or exploitation. The chapter does, however, mention, albeit only in passing, that in the later Vedic period, ‘in some places’ there is mention of the varna system being transformed into one based on ‘family’. Crucially, even here there is no mention of caste oppression which is repeatedly attested to in all the Brahminical texts. The chapter then goes on to a discussion of Brahminical Hinduism, praising it as the veritable epitome of ecumenism. ‘Hinduism believes in tolerance for all humanity’, it says, conveniently overlooking the stern rules that virtually all the Brahminical Hindu texts lay down for the ‘low’ castes. ‘The Upanishads speak of happiness of all creatures’, it goes on, without mentioning the cruel oppression of the ‘low’ castes in the same scriptural tradition.

‘Hinduism talks of the entire world as being one family’, it claims, glossing over the fact that Hinduism has condemned the vast majority of the Indian people to sub-human status. It insists that Hinduism ‘gave direction to world peace’, overlooking the numerous stories of violence engaged in by Hindu deities against their ‘asuric’ opponents, who, if Dalit ideologues are to be believed, were none but their own ancestors, the original inhabitants of India. The entire chapter is a crude piece of propaganda that, reflecting apologetic Brahminical or Hindutva discourse, does not seriously engage with the Brahminical tradition while at the same time seeking to ardently defend it. Since the textbooks seem to be specifically geared to presenting an idealized image of Brahminical Hinduism in line with the view of modern neo-Brahminical or Hindutva apologists, they do not, of course, refer to the darker side of the Vedas, particularly the violence and hatred directed against the dark-skinned aboriginal peoples of India, references to which are found in abundance in the Vedas. As the noted historian David Lorenzen argues in his recent book, ‘Who Invented Hinduism?: Esays on Religion in History’ (Yoda Pres, New Delhi, 2006), Aryan or Vedic civilisation has little or no resemblance with the way it is portrayed in Hindu apologetic discourse. He writes that the Rig Veda is replete with negative references to the Dasas and Dasyus, the original inhabitants of India, progenitors of the Dalits and Adivasis of today, who are almost invariably described in lurid terms; as ‘worshippers of the male phallus’, ‘not sacrificing’, irreligious’, ‘without blessing’, ‘godless’, ‘bereft of the Vedas’ and so on. ‘Whatever the Dasa religion was’, Lorenzen says, ‘the Aryas clearly regarded it as inferior to their own’.

The Rig-Vedic Aryans were not opposed to the indigenous Indians on grounds of religious difference alone and the latter’s resistance to the Aryan sacrifice-based religion. Another grounds for opposition was skin colour. Lorenzen writes that the Rig Veda is replete with praises of various Aryan gods who are described as aiding the Aryans in their merciless slaughter of the non-Aryan dark-skinned original inhabitants of India. Thus, the Rig Veda [9.41.1] speaks of Soma as ‘killing the black skin’ and of ‘burn[ing] up the irreligious […] the dark skin that Indra hates’. It invokes the fire-god Agni and says, ‘From fear of you the dark tribes went in all directions, abandoning their possessions’ [7.5.3]. It talks of Indra helping the ‘sacrificing Arya’ by ‘punishing irreligious men and [making] subject to Manu the black skin’ [1.101.1]. It invokes Indra as he who ‘gives joy and, with Rjisvan, [who] killed the black offspring [or the black pregnant women]’. It specifically identifies Indra’s enemies as Dasyus and refers to Indra as ‘the Vrtra killer, the breaker of forts [who] tore to pieces female Dasas who had black vulvae’. The Rig Veda invokes Indra as he who ‘threw down the fifty thousand blacks and broke their forts as if [they were] old garments’ [4.13] and as he who ‘drove away the blacks’ and ‘killed the Dasas’ [6.47.21]. Indra is further lauded as one who ‘killed the noseless [or mouthless] Dasyus with [his] weapon’ [5.29.10], and ‘who, with his voice, killed many thousand inauspicious [women?] who had loud voices and spoke with disputatious speech’ [[10.235.5], this probably being a reference to speakers of non-Aryan indigenous languages. Analysing these and other Rig Vedic verses, Lorenzon argues that ‘the Rig Vedic evidence showing that the Arya warriors looked on themselves as conquerors, modeled on Indra and the Maruts, is simply overwhelming. To suggest, even indirectly, that their movement into South Asia consisted primarily of more or less peaceful, small-scale migrations (or even ‘infiltrations’) by bands much smaller than such tribes seems to me to be implausible and contrary to the evidence that exists’. ‘To make the Aryas into peaceful cowherds seems to me to imply that they followed some sort of pacifistic, Buddhist-like or Jain-like ideology, whereas the rig Veda clearly shows just the opposite. Arya men dedicated much of their lives to war a nd battle’. Hence, he insists, ‘the conclusion that several large-size Arya groups entered South Asia as invaders seems to be the only view that corresponds to the Vedas’. These darker aspects of Aryan culture and history are, of course, not referred to at all in the Rajasthan textbooks, which are geared to presenting the Vedic period as India’s ‘golden age’, which, as Lorenzen’s critique clearly indicates, is completely unwarranted. The invisibiliation of the Dalits, Adivasis and other oppressed castes in the textbooks is reflected not only in the glorification of Vedic culture but also in the almost total absence of any reference to these communities at all. There is not a single mention of the Dalits, and the only reference to Adivasis appears in the standard seven text, in a chapter titled ‘Rang Birangi Bharatiya Sanskriti’ (‘The Colourful Indian Culture’), which describes the Adivasis in terms of their alleged ‘exoticness’. Thus, it says, ‘in Nagaland, people put on masks depicting animals and birds and dance. In the North-East, there are thick rain forests […] and people here are short, flat-nosed and yellow in colour. Most of them live in tribes and love wearing colourful clothes’. This is also the only reference to North-East India in all the books. The same chapter also refers briefly to the Adivasis of Central and East India, saying, ‘Bihar has a large number of Adivasis as does Jharkhand. The Chhau dance here is famous and people dance wearing masks. Adivasi [men] wear dhotis till their knees and women wear saris [sic.]’.

As the textbooks appear to see it, the ‘low’ castes have not produced any heroes who are worth emulating. All the Hindu heroes mentioned in the books are ‘upper’ castes, including a number of Hindu kings and the founders of the various Hindu religious movements. Indian history is presented as the history of Hindu (and Muslim) rulers and other elites, with no mention at all of ‘ordinary’ people. The building of grand temples and palaces by various kings is elaborated upon in detail, but, expectedly, nothing at all issaid of the oppression that the ‘low’ castes had to suffer and through whose exploitation the entire cultural edifice that that the textbooks glorify was built. Likewise, the textbooks portray the Indian freedom struggle as the effort of ‘upper’ caste Hindu leaders, there being no mention whatsoever of Dalit, Adivasi, Shudra and Muslim freedom fighters. It is as if Gandhi and other ‘upper’ caste leaders of the Congress alone won India freedom from the British. In this silencing of the non-‘upper’ caste Hindu role in the freedom struggle, Dalit and Muslim leaders and organizations are portrayed in negative terms, as playing a divisive role and thereby working to strengthen British imperialism. Thus, the text meant for students of class nine describes the Muslim League as a British creation and identifies it as the sole cause of the mass violence in India immediately prior to the Partition. Muslim and Dalit critiques of the Congress as an ‘upper’ caste party, the significant Hindu supremacist element within the Congress, the consistent opposition of Hindu right-wing organizations, such as the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Hindu Mahsabha, to the anti-imperialist struggle, their vociferous hatred of Muslims (and Dalits) and their active role in violence directed against Muslims are thus completely ignored. The only mention of non-‘upper’ caste figures in the context of the freedom struggle is a veiled negative reference to Babasaheb Ambedkar. It describes the decision by the British to grant separate electorates to Dalits in order to protect Dalit interests in 1932, but condemns this as ‘dividing the Hindus and the national movement’. It refers to Gandhi having persuaded Ambedkar to drop the demand for separate Dalit electorates, and, predictably, does not mention how the latter agreed to do this much against his will. Interestingly, this is the only mention of Ambedkar in all the texts.

The textbooks’ invisibilisation of the oppressed castes and, indeed, of such basic facts of Indian life as poverty, communal violence and caste discrimination, is evident in the way they deal with contemporary Indian society. Not a word is mentioned about the darker aspects of Indian reality. Instead, the textbooks present Indian society as prosperous, free of all contradictions and as marching towards peace and progress for all. Thus, the class six textbook talks of various social groups based on profession, describing this division of labour as working for the good of all, without even a hint of a mention of class or caste oppression. Defending the class system it simply asks, ‘If people associated with any profession stop working, imagine what difficulty we will face?’ The texts repeatedly refer to village and city life and make it a point to present the state as a benign institution, actively involved in promoting people’s welfare. That agencies of the state can do anything but this is thus ruled out completely. Thus, the textbooks deal in detail about various facilities provided, in theory, by the state for the public, presenting what is true in theory as true in practice as well. They mention various rights accorded to citizens by the Constitution without even mentioning the fact that for a very large section of the country’s population these remain only on paper and mean virtually nothing at all. They talk about the legislature, the judiciary and the police as being actively engaged in promoting people’s welfare, conflating principle with actual reality, and ignoring the active role of these institutions in sustaining the system of exploitation and oppression. Thus, for example, the standard seven text proclaims, ‘India is the biggest democracy in the world’ and this means that ‘the people are the rulers’ and that they elect their rulers who, in turn, ‘work for the public’ in ‘accordance with the Indian Constitution’. In turn, this means that ‘no one can be exploited and no one can be paid less than a proper wage’.

The textbooks even go to the extent of uncritically glorifying ‘globalisation’ and imperialism, which are playing such havoc with the livelihoods and lives of millions of Dalits, Adivasis and similar sections among other marginalized communities such as Muslims. Thus, the class nine textbook hails India’s close alliance with America, piously proclaiming that both countries ‘are democratic, committed to world peace, independence and respect for human rights […] Following the fall of the Soviet Union, the liberaleconomic policies have made relations between the two countries harmonious’. It further claims that ‘In the age of globalisation, due to its large area, population, huge middle class and economic potential, the USA has realized that India’s economic and political potential and democratic set-up cannot be ignored’. The devastating costs of ‘globalisation’ for millions of Dalits and other oppressed communities are thus carefully glossed over. The standard six textbook goes overboard in its enthusiasm for ‘globalization’, going so far as to claim a Hindu origin for it! Thus, it claims, ‘An important feature of Aryan society was the belief that all of humankind is one family and today that is expressed in the form of globalisation’. Rajasthan’s textbooks are not alone in their glorification of Brahminism, whitewashing its deep-rooted tradition of oppression, conflating it with Indian nationalism and invisibilising Dalits, Adivasis, Muslims and other marginalised communities.

It is likely that the same holds true in the case of texts used in many, if not most, Indian states. This urgently calls for organised efforts to critique the texts from a caste-class point of view and to buildpressure on the state to take appropriate measures.

___________

Copyright: Yoginder Sikand circulated in Yahoo Group