Saturday, August 18, 2012

What is Shivdharma Book by A H salunkhe

An Exposition of “Shivdharma”
Dr. A.H.Salunkhe
Translated from Marathi by Dr. K. Jamanadas
A big silent revolution is taking place among the OBCs of Maharashtra. The majority community
of Maharashtra — the Marathas the Knnbis—are holding a series of conferences in Maharashtra to break
away from Hinduism and form a new religion to be named as “Shivdharma”. All these conferences are
reported to be great success, though at one place, reportedly there was some vandalism by misguided
youths. The message has reached all over India and abroad. People from Tamilnadu and Bihar and other
states are also arranging the conferences, it is said.
The organizers are “Maratha Seva Sangha”, a prominent organization of OBCs in Maharashtra headed
by Mr. Purushottam Khedekar. The brain behind the movement which is going on for last few years, is Dr.
A. H. Salunkhe. He is writing the “Code of Conduct” and the “Scripture” of the new religion, which they
connect with the Indus Valley civilization. There is participation of many OBC leaders in Maharashtra
including Prof. Ashok Rana, and Prof. M. M. Deshmukh.
Parshuram Dhote, a former District President of BJP, editor of a local journal, “Bhumi putra chi hak”
and the main organizer of “Waman Dahan Programme”, which they hope will be the OBC way to celebrate
Diwali in future, was renamed as “BaliRaj Dhote” during the valedictory function in Chandrapur.
The details of Shiva Dharma
Their ideals and idols are Jijau—the mother of Shivaji, the Buddha, Shivaji and other non-Brahmin
great personalities like Tukaram and Kabir and Shahu, Ambedkar, Phule and the Periyar. The date for
conversion is fixed as 12th January 2005 on the birth anniversary of Jijau at Sindkhed Raja, her birthplace.
There will be no founder of religion and no priests. Some may believe in “God” or may not, there will be
no castes and no restrictions on marriage and dining. There will be no “Satya-narayana” puja — an
alternative will be reading of biography of Jijau and Savitribai Phule. The religion would be based on
science and there will be no blind faiths or exploitation of others.
Dr. Salunkhe has appealed to the Brahmin brethren that he has no bitterness about them while parting
ways from them. He said that the Buddhists also should understand why they are not accepting Buddhism
is because of “samaj vastav” — the ground realities in the society. The Buddha is a great “bridge” between
them and the Buddhists, and expressed the hope that some good day we all would be one. Dr. Salunkhe
declaring their movement as “Movement for Liberation”, said that we need toilets for women in villages
rather than temples.
As a preliminary and first stage to explain their stand as to why they are going away from Hinduism
and forming a new religion, Dr. A. H. Salunkhe has published in June 2002 a small booklet of about 30
pages, titled “Gulama cha aani gulam karanaran cha dharm ek nasato” i.e. - “Religion of Slaves and of
those who made them Slaves can not be the same”. This is the translation of it in English. I tried to be more
literal than literary.
Skepticism and hopes
There are many people among the Ambedkarites who express openly or in private the skepticism that
this move of Marathas to part ways from Hinduism is just to sabotage the wave among the OBCs to adopt
Buddhism. These people point out that wife of Mr. Khedekar is BJP member of Maharashtra Legislature.
But personally I do not find any such skepticism to be justified. This is because the people like
Prabhakar Pawade, Adv. Eknath Salve who have already adopted Buddhism some ten years ago are
associated with the movement. Khedekar has also explained the presence of his wife in B.J.P. as strategic.
People like Prof. Ashok Rana, Prof. M. M. Deshmukh, and Dr. A. H. Salunkhe himself have been writing
many articles and books awakening the OBCs against Brahminism for long time, though it is only recently
that the movement of Khedekar’s “Maratha Seva Sangh” is coming up.
In 1947, in a message published in the Souvenir of “Maratha Mandir” of Bombay, Dr. Ambedkar had
said that the Marathas and other OBCs, who used to be with lower classes, now seem to be with the upper
class. He said that, the future of not only Indian masses but also their own, depends upon what decision the
Maratha leaders take. He opined, it all should be left to the skill and wisdom of the leaders of Marathas, but
lamented that there seems to be a lack of such wise leadership among the Marathas.
That period is now over. And we hope that this awakening among the OBCs, coming after a long
time, will lead to liberation of Indian masses and fulfill the wishes of Dr. Ambedkar.
Dr. K. Jamanadas
Religion is a deep rooted concept
‘Religion’—‘dharma’—is an important concept rooted in human mind. With an exception of a few, it
is a great mental support for majority of people. It is a controlling power in their lives. It decides their life
style. It gives direction to their life events. It guides them in deciding how to lead own life as a human
being and how to deal with others. Religion influences the cultural life of societies like its thoughts and
actions, philosophy, myths, literature, other arts, rituals, festival and ceremonials. That means, if one
inspects the cultural elements of anybody’s personality, one would find various elements created by
If I have to stay as a Hindu?...
There are many religions in the world like Hinduism, Christianity, Islam etc. today. As I was born to
Hindu parents and as I have not formally converted to any other religion as yet, at least now my religion is
Hinduism. Now, if I am to be real, honest and loyal follower of Hinduism, things which are considered as
holy by Hinduism, I must consider them as holy, and the things considered as profane by Hinduism, I must
consider them as profane. If I have to lead my life as a Hindu, I must remain within the limits laid down by
the religion. Under such circumstances, I must consider the Vedas as holy. Second to these, the ‘Smritis’
are my scriptures too. I must also respect the ‘puranas’. Though the ‘Ramayana’ and ‘Mahabharata’ are
considered as mere epics, I must accept the orthodox view that they are, in a way, my scriptures. I must
believe in various thoughts and actions, ceremonials and rituals etc. prescribed by these books. I must
respectfully believe that the consequences of deeds done in the past life are to be suffered in this life. I must
believe the theories like Vishnu took ‘avatar’ for killing the wicked. I must accept the division of society
into four ‘varnas’. In short, if I have to be a Hindu, broadly speaking, I must believe all these faiths, I
should not have any doubts about them, and should do nothing that will break these faiths.
We believed Brahmins to the hilt
The peculiarity of Hinduism is that, all aspects of the religion have been entrusted to the Brahmins. To
write the scriptures, to decide the rules of our conduct, to prepare the rituals, to create ceremonials and
festivals, to decide the philosophy of religion, to construct the myths, and all such related subjects to decide
the nature of this religion have been delegated, more or less completely, to Brahmins. We believed them to
the extreme hilt. We considered them sacred. We considered them not only as representatives of God on the
earth but also as actual gods on the earth, the ‘bhudevas’. We respected each and every word uttered by
them. We accepted all their commands. We behaved according to all their mandates. We shaped all our
lives according to their orders. We never doubted about any of their deeds. We gave them supreme position
in our lives. We gave them all powers and authority regarding religion. We gave them unbridled freedom.
In return of trust, we expected a righteous religious system
While trusting the Brahmins with all these powers, we—the rest of Hindus—were sure that these
holy, well-bathed people would liberate us. We expected that the Brahmins would relieve our sufferings,
that they will create a pretty universe for us, that they will bring happiness to our lives, that they will fulfil
the dreams of our children, and will give us respectful lives as human beings. We believed that they will
take upon themselves the beatings imposed on us by others. If not, at least they will not inflict injuries on
us. They will not snatch away what we have laboriously produced, that they will not deprive us of the fruits
of our labour, that they will not kick us out, that they would not despise us, that they will participate in our
happiness and sorrows. If we, ourselves, can not approach the power that controls the Universe, we hoped,
that they will carry the feelings of our heart without adulteration to that power, that they will pray to god on
our behalf, will worship, will act as our representatives in religious fields, act as our trustees, that the
language of our hearts will be automatically understood by their hearts. In short, we expected that we will
get a transparent, generous, selfless, and comprehensive response to the trust we imposed on them.
Our trust was responded with treachery
The Hindus reposed such a great trust upon the Brahmins but one feels sad to see their response to all
this trust. They replied this trust with a betrayal. This is the greatest tragedy of a Hindu’s religious life. The
Brahmins actually injured the followers of their own religion. Instead of looking after the welfare of those
who trusted them, they created laws, which benefited only their own ‘varna’. They saw to it that all except
the Brahmins remain in ignorance forever. They created insulting laws and made them helpless. They made
arrangements to keep us suppressed under Brahminic hegemony for generations. They disregarded all
morality for this purpose. They made laws degrading humanity. They ignored justice. They did not apply a
goad of discretion upon themselves. They wrote a false history. They made their own co-religionist observe
the moments of their defeats as festivals and celebrations of glory. They always drove away the common
men. And whenever, they required their help at times of need, they used them for selfish and wicked
purposes. They glorified their own misdeeds. Naturally, all this gave a heart rending nature to Hindu
religion. It was anathematised externally as well as internally.
Complain against Brahmins, but still put head on their feet
Numerous wise, compassionate, and active great personalities born in Hindu society, tried time and
again to rescue the Hindus, the Bahujans, from this deadly grip of Brahmins. But it is a painful fact that the
Bahujans did not whole-heartedly and fully support them. People from Bahujan Samaj, generally in private
and rarely in public, complain of Brahminic hegemony, they grumble, criticise and despise. But in practice,
never get ready to celebrate any important occasion in life without the presence of a Brahmin priest.
Brahmins have instilled seeds of fear in their minds to such an extent that it has now thrived as a vast crop
of blind-faith. Majority of non-Brahmins has such a terror about Brahmin religion that they can not even
imagine of rescuing themselves from it. Even the people bleeding from abrasions by the thorns of the laws
of that religion, do not think about uprooting these thorns or get away from these thorns, instead they are
ever ready to let themselves gladly pricked by those very same thorns.
This Discussion is mostly for mainly those who call themselves Kshatriyas
It is true that we find in our history several attempts to separate away from this cruel Brahminic
system. Numerous people denied the system and have been liberated from it. Shortly I am going to deal
with these attempts separately. However, here what I am going to discuss is meant for those who are stuck
with this system in spite of being trampled upon by it. Specially this writing is meant for those who
consider themselves as Kshatriyas or their descendants and therefore consider it their sacred duty to protect
the Hindu religion, that is in effect Brahmin religion. This is meant for those who are about to shed
blood—other’s as well as their own—for protecting Brahminic religion. I have shown elsewhere, many a
times, what Brahmin religion has done to the Vaishyas and Shudras. Even then, here I am attempting to
show what the Hindu Scriptures say about the Kshatriyas once again in short. I expect that those who
consider themselves as Kshatriyas should at least give a calm thought to this. This is my humble and honest
request. Of course, I am also appealing to the intellect and the hearts of other Hindus who do not consider
themselves Kshatriyas, but still consider it their sacred duty to cling to their chest the prison of the very
same Brahminic system as their holy religion.
Mahabharata is a holy scripture of Hindus
I am starting this discussion with a dialogue from Mahabharata, which is famous as a great book in
our culture. On one side it called as History also and on the other as philosophy as it contains a book like
Bhagwat Gita. Because of its total structure, it is dear and respectable to the Hindus. It is expected of a
Hindu that he should consider it a matter of pride and hold it over his head and consider it worshipable.
Now, it is clear that the Kshatriyas, also being Hindus, must consider it holy. I like to present a sample
of what this book says about Kshatriyas for the consideration of those groups of people who consider
themselves as Kshatriyas. It is supposed that this book was written by Vyasa. Its original form was of only
about eight thousand verses and it was called ‘Jay’. Later a disciple of Vyasa, named as Vaishampayana,
inflated it to twenty five thousand verses and named it as ‘Bharat’. During later times a scholar named
Shoutee conflated it to hundred thousand verses and named it as ‘Mahabharata’. This third edition came in
existence in second century B.C.E. i.e. during the times of writing of ‘Manu-smriti’. The tradition itself
accepts these three revised and enlarged editions. But in reality there have been many more revised
The author of the second edition, Vaishampayana was the royal priest of Janmejaya, the great grand
son of Arjuna. Later Janmejaya appointed another Brahmin as priest to conduct a Yajnya and outraged
Vaishampayana became enemy of Janmejaya and made him abdicate the throne.
Dialogue between Janmejaya and Vaishampayana
In the Adiparva [Chap. 58] of Mahabharata [edition published by Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute Pune], there is a description of Vaishampayana narrating the genealogy of Kauravas Pandavas etc.
to Janmejaya. Hearing this description, Janmejaya asked him: “O great sage, tell me clearly why these
godly great warriors took birth on this earth.” What Vaishampayana tells him on this request is worth
understanding. He said, “O King, in realty, this is the secret of gods, so we heard. Even then, I salute to
Brahmadeva and tell it to you.”
All Kshatriyas were destroyed, they say
Starting thus, he further narrated: [58.5 to 58.8, complete verses quoted]
“Parshuram, previously, had killed all the Kshatriyas on the face of the earth twenty one
times and went to Mahendra mountain for tapas. O king, after the world was made devoid of
Kshatriyas by Parshuram, the Kshatriya women went to Brahmin men with the intention of getting
impregnated. O tiger in human form, then the Brahmins, honest in duties, cohabited with these women
during each period (‘ritu’). They did not do it out of lust. They did not cohabit during ‘unritu’. “
‘Ritu’ means that period of time which is after the menstrual period of women, and which is suitable
for pregnancy. The rest of time is ‘unritu’.
Vaishampayana further narrates:
“O king, these thousands of Kshatriya women got pregnant from the Brahmins and gave birth
to Kshatriyas from the Brahmins’ semen. Thus they produced Kshatriya sons and daughters so that the
Kshatriyas again proliferate. Thus the Kshatriyas procreated by the Brahmin sages on the Kshatriya
women got long life and increased because of ‘dharma’. Later, after the Brahmins, all the four
‘varnas’ were created.”
After this, Vaishampayana, gives a charming and pleasant description of how people were following
the ‘dharma’, how all the kings were ruling according to ‘dharma’ and how the varnas like Brahmins
were seeking pleasures etc. during the days of ‘krit yuga’ i.e. ‘satya yuga’. Vaishampayana then describes
at length the religious behaviour of people in those days, that the Kshatriyas were giving ample ‘daxina’
(gifts) to Brahmins and doing ‘maha-yajnyas’, Brahmins were not uttering Vedas in the presence of
Shudras, all the ‘varnas’ were doing their duties as enjoined to them, there was no decline of ‘dharma’
anywhere, etc.
The account given in Mahabharata in this dialogue of Vaishampayana with Janmejaya, needs to be
examined from many angles. Here I will put forward only a few points.
Would you consider this wily story written by Vaishampayana as true?
The gist of story written by Vaishampayana is clear. The message given by Vaishampayana to the
society by this story is clearly unequivocal. According to Vaishampayana the Kshatriyas after Parshuram,
even in Sat-yuga, were not of pure seed, they were mixed breed. They were progeny of Brahmins on
Kshatriya women, meaning they were misbegotten hybrids. Naturally, in the following periods, the real,
legitimate Kshatriyas were not in existence, are not in existence and will never be in existence in future. If
this is the state of affairs in ‘sat-yuga’, it is better not to talk of the stand of scriptures that during the ‘kaliyuga’
the Kshatriyas have become Shudras.
Now, I think some serious questions arise for those people who consider themselves as Kshatriyas in
the present times. The first question is, do they have faith in Mahabharata. If they do, the record given by
Vaishampayana must be considered as true, and in that case, they will have to accept it as a historical truth,
that they are not of Kshatriya seed. On the contrary, the second question arises is, are they willing to
critically analyze the account given by Mahabharata. After critical analysis, if the account given by
Vaishampayana is found correct, it will have to be calmly accepted. But if it is proved beyond doubt to be
false, another question arises whether they are willing to denounce it. And if they are ready for that a
further question arises that, are they willing to revaluate the whole of Mahabharata and other scriptures like
This is the central point in corrupt Brahminization
There is no doubt that people like me would prefer to follow the path of critical analysis. If you have
to follow this path, you will have to go, mentally, to second century B.C.E. The Brahmin Commander
Pushyamitra Shunga had assassinated the last Maurya King Bahidratha, in this century, and usurped the
throne. After capturing political power, the people in Brahmin varna, created a tremendous havoc in the
cultural life of India. On one hand, the system of Chaturvarna with Brahminic supremacy, and on the other,
male dominated gender discrimination against women, were strengthened during this time. The Brahmins
of Bhrigu race were on fore front in this. Manu-smriti which strictly implements above mentioned double
social system was created by Brahmins of this Bhrigu vamsha during this period. Parshuram, who was born
in the same Bhrigu vamsha, was a vigorous propagator of this double system. This is proved by the fact
that, to establish Brahmin supremacy, he ruthlessly carried out a cruel genocide of Kshatriyas and beheaded
his Kshatriya mother on the orders of Brahmin father. During the same period, the major changes were
made in the innumerable books like Ramayana, Mahabharata, Puranas etc., completely changing their
structure. In the name of religion, anything and everything was written as they pleased. The false imaginary
stories that were not present in the original books were manufactured and were incorporated in various
books. The sole purpose of doing all this was to glorify the Brahmins, to protect their vested interests and to
strengthen their grip on the society. The culture was corrupted. To say it frankly, the culture was
brahminized. The main part of this was to declare everybody except Brahmins, as ignoble.
About the process of this brahminization, I earnestly wish to invite attentions of readers to two
observations of Siddheswara Shastri Chitrav. The now extant edition of Mahabharata goes by the name of
Sautee. About this, Chitrav Shastri in his ‘bharatiya prachin charitra kosha’ [hindi ed., 1964, Pune, p.
1088] observes:
“this is why, the author (rachiyeta) of present edition of Mahabharata is Sautee, though its
originator (pravartak) were Vyasa and Vaishampayana. The period of the present Mahabharata
authored by Sautee, is considered to be second century B.C.E.”
This means the present edition of Mahabharata was created during the same period as the creation of
Manu-smriti, because this was the same time of Brahminic reign which created Manu-smriti during the rule
of Pushyamitra Shunga.
Though the name of Sautee is put forward, in reality, it was created by the Brahmins. The father of
Sautee, Romaharshana, belonged to Suta caste. The progeny of Brahmin mother and Kshatriya father used
to be considered of Suta caste. Originally, the knowledge of ‘puranic myths’ was in the hands of this Suta
caste, but was later usurped by Brahmins. This is clear by statement of Chitrav Shastri [ibid. p. 772] that,
“Out of six disciples of Romaharshana five ‘acharyas’ were Brahmins. Because of this the tradition of
Mahabharata coming in Suta caste was destroyed and all this knowledge went in the hands of Brahmins.
This is the reason why the later scholars of Puranas are Brahmins.” What happened to Puranas also
happened to Mahabharata and gradually the brahminization of Indian culture increased. The non-brahmins
neglected the work of writing books and they gave it to Brahmins as if in a dowry. Then the history was
written wholly by the Brahmins with their own view point, suitable to them, supporting them and declaring
them as supreme.
Janmejaya would not have tolerated this
This story told by Vaishampayana to Janmejaya about Kshatriya’s origin in Mahabharata, is a part of
this process of Brahminization. It might have been manufactured in second century B.C.E. or might have
been in existence in seed form before hand; what ever might be the case, it is highly improbable that it was
in reality told to Janmejaya. This is because this story is totally false and so derogatory to the existence of
Kshatriyas, that no Brahmin could have dared to actually tell it to Kshatriya Janmejaya. However, it is
possible that Vaishampayana and some other Brahmins might have propagated such false stories in the
masses to denigrate the Kshatriyas and might have started such a secret propaganda. It is possible to be one
of the reasons behind the enmity between Janmejaya and Vaishampayana. Of course, one can not say with
confidence that Vaishyampayana could not have dared to actually tell it to Janmejaya. In this society
riddled with too much influence of religion on the masses, how the Brahmins are so arrogant due to
religious power, and how the audacious priests used to humiliate the Kings is clear from the examples of
Maharaja Chatrapati Shivaji and Rajarshi Shahu.
Hard struggle of Janmejaya against Brahmins
My inference that such a story would not have been tolerated by Janmejaya, has some references in
the life of Janmejaya. Being son of king Parikshit, Janmejaya is called “Janmejaya Parikshit”. Siddheswara
Shastri Chitrav thinks there were two kings of this name. I consider both the same. But even if they are
considered to be two different ones, we find a hard struggle against Brahmins in the lives of both of them.
About the first Janmejaya, Chitrav Shastri observes: [Ibid. p. 221]:
“Because of hard words uttered, he (justifiably — ‘vadha’) killed the Gargya putra. Because
of ‘brahma-hatya’, he had to renounce the throne.”
About the second Janmejaya, he observes: [Ibid. p. 222]
“Second Janmejaya Parikshit was very religious. He made Bajseniya his ‘brahma’ in his
yajnya. Then Vaishampayana cursed him. Brahmins stopped the priesthood of Kshatriyas. But with the
help of Bajsenaya people, he performed two Horse sacrifices. Being brave, he was supported by other
Kshatriyas. Because of support to Bajsenayas, the Brahmins removed him from the throne and sent
him to forest. Because of struggle against Brahmins, he was destroyed. (Kautillya, p. 22) ... Even after
the Bajsaneyas got royal patronage, the Vaishampayanas created a lot of disturbances. They tried a lot
to defeat Bajsenayas in debates. But Janmejaya foiled all their attempts. He not only accepted the
opposition of people, opposition of brahmins, but also accepted the abdication of throne.”
It becomes clear from this, that there was a fierce struggle going on in life of Janmejaya against the
Brahmins and specially against Vaishampayanas. That Janmejaya had selected some other priest instead of
Vaishampayana, enraged the latter, who tried to take revenge. Similar things had happened about the King
Looking at all this struggle of Janmejaya against the Brahmins, it is clear that it was not possible that
some Brahmin like Vaishampayana might have told a false derogatory story of ignoble recreation of
Kshatriyas from Brahmins directly to Janmejaya himself. And Janmejaya would not have tolerated it even
if somebody told it to him. But actually the present book of Mahabharata tells us that, Janmejaya heard this
history very humbly and piously from Vaishampayana. It is, however, true that Mahabharata got its
revenge against Janmejaya in later times by construction of such a story—that Vaishampayana is telling
him false history of ignoble recreation of Kshatriyas from Brahmin seed—by some Brahmin among the
Vaishampayanas, the very people against whom Janmejaya had enmity.
Parshuram himself was born out of varna-sankara
There are many strong reasons to believe that the story put in the mouth of Vaishampayana is false.
As a matter of fact, the story is written in the name Parshuram. to unjustifiably glorify Brahmins The
mother of very same Parshuram was not a Brahmin. This means that, according to the scriptures of Vedics
themselves, Parshuram, being son of Brahmin father Jamdagni and non-Brahmin mother Renuka, was
himself born out of ‘varna-sankara’. It has to be said that, Parshuram, in whose name Mahabharata has
declared all Kshatriyas as of ignoble origin (‘kam-assal’), is himself proved to be a Brahmin of ignoble
origin. Perhaps, just to hide the ‘varna-sankara’ in his own blood, Kshatriya hater Parshuram might have
beheaded Renuka though she was his own mother only because she was a Kshatriya. The information
furnished by Vaishampayana that Parshuram flourished during ‘sat-yuga’ is also false. Because, it is
believed that he was in ‘treta yuga’ or in mid period between ‘treta’ and ‘dwapar’ yuga. [MB. adiparva 2.3
- verse quoted]. Anyway, I do not consider these points to be of importance in the present discussion.
Self Contradictory statement is absurd
The statement of Mahabharata that Parshuram made the earth devoid twenty one times, is in itself so
full of contradictions that must be considered as ridiculous. This is called in Sanskrit as ‘vadato-vyaghat’.
This word is used to denote a statement which negates its own meaning. Suppose somebody says, ‘I always
tell lies’. If this statement is true, what he said must be untrue and hence it proves he sometimes speaks the
truth, which negates the statement. If the statement that Parshuram made earth devoid of Kshatriyas twenty
one times is taken literally, the same contradiction arises. Once the earth is made devoid of Kshatriyas, the
question of again doing it does not arise, as all Kshatriyas were killed the first time and none remained to
get killed the second time. It does not stand to reason that it can be done twenty one times as it is
impossible to do even twice.
This is a wily attempt to destroy the Kshatriya seed
To attempt to divest the earth of Kshatriyas is to destroy the Kshatriya seed. This means Parshuram
destroyed even the fetuses in the wombs of their mothers. One can understand the killing of the enemy
standing in front ready for war, but to kill a life in womb is to destroy the seed and feel gratified is the most
cruel thing.
One can get the idea of cruelty of Parshuram by the account given by Chitrav Shastri: [p.392]
“... enraged, Parshuram again took to arms and (justifiably vadha) killed the Kshatriyas left
alive the first time considering them innocent. Irrespective of young age, he destroyed even the lives
in wombs.” [emphasis not original]
The following account given by Chitrav Shastri is also worth noting: [p. 391]
“Earth divested of Kshatriyas — Thus, Parshuram (justifiably - vadha) killed six hundred and
forty million Kshatriyas. Out of those hundred and forty million were those openly hating the
Brahmins. The remaining were punished in many ways. He (justifiably — vadha) killed Dantkrura. He
killed one thousand warriors with a musal (rod for thrashing grain), thousands were cut by a sword,
thousands were hanged on trees, and a similar number were drowned. Teeth, noses and ears of
thousands were cut. Seven thousand were given the inhalations of chilies. They rest were tied and
beaten up and they were destroyed by beheading them. The battle took place with Kshatriyas at the
foot of the hills to the north of Gunavati and south of Khandava-aranya. Here he destroyed ten
thousand warriors. After that, he (justifiably -vadha) killed the various kings like insects at various
places like Kashmir, Drad, Kunti, Khsudrak, Malava, Anga, Vanga, Kalinga, Videha, Tamrlipti,
Rakshovaha, Vitihotra, Trigarta, Martikavat, Shibi etc. Similarly he killed (vadha - justifiable killing)
the forest dwellers.”
“In this way Parshuram cut the heads of twelve thousand crowned kings (murdha-abhishikta).
Then he brought thousands of kings as prisoners to Kurukshetra. Here he dug up five big pools (kund)
and filled them up with the blood of prisoner kings. Then Parshuram took blood-bath (‘rudhir-snan’)
in these ponds, and offered oblations (‘tarpan’) to his dead ancestors (‘pitars’). These ‘kunds’ are even
now famous in the names of ‘samant-panchak teerth’ and ‘parshuram-hruda’.”
It is true that there might be some exaceration in this account. Chitrav Shastri also says so. Some part
may be of vain adoration of Brahmins. But it becomes unquestionably clear from this account that
Parshuram performed the pogrom of Kshatriyas very cruelly. Sautee, it is said, narrated his ‘Mahabharata’
to rishis like Saunak etc. in the vicinity of this very same ‘samant-panchak teerth’. This means that, there is
no doubt that, the people making third revised edition of Mahabharata were lovers of Parshuram and haters
of Kshatriyas. While inflating Mahabharata from twenty five thousand verses to one hundred thousand
verses, these haters of Kshatriyas must have newly constructed this story of ignoble origin of Kshatriyas or
if it was narrated by Vaishampayana in essence, it was inflated by those Brahmins who were lovers of
Parshuram, in Sautee’s times.
It impossible that all Kshatriyas were killed
Now, if we take this statement of ‘making earth devoid of Kshatriyas twenty one times’ either literally
or as a rhetoric, we get the gist of it that Parshuram conducted mayhem of Kshatriyas on a greatly
devastating scale, that he took to battles many times and that approximate number of his invasions were
twenty one. But this also makes clear that, even after twenty one battles there were Kshatriyas in existence
and the later Kshatriyas flourished and grew from Kshatriya seed only. In recent times Hitler tried to do
genocide of Jews, but even he could not kill all the Jews. In the same way, even after Parshuram’s all
attempts of killing all Kshatriyas, some lives were saved. It was also impossible to kill all Kshatriyas as
Parshuram’s activities were limited to certain areas alone.
Great doubt of Yudhishthara
This inference of mine is based on an important observation in Mahabharata itself from Vasudeva
himself. Of course, one must not forget that the original statement of Shrikrishna is brahminized at various
places. Mahabharata puts this account also in the mouth of Vaishampayana.
Once, Krishna went to Kurukshetra with Pandavas etc. He narrated the bravery of Parshuram. He
said: [MB, shanti parva, 48.8,9 - full verses quoted]
“O Partha, these five ‘ramhrud’ (Parshuram doha) are seen at a distance. Parshuram offered
oblation (tarpan) to his ancestors in these ponds with the blood of Kshatriyas. That lord made the earth
devoid of Kshatriyas twenty one times and then stopped his work (of killing).”
The response of Yudhishthara to this is very important. He said: [shanti parva 48.10-14 full verses
“O great among the Yadus, you said that Parshuram made the earth devoid of Kshatriyas
twenty one times. I have got great doubts about this action. If he has burned the Kshatriya seed
completely, then how were they recreated? In later times the earth became so much full of Kshatriyas,
that in the Mahabharata war billions of Kshatriyas were killed. O Krishna, where from these
Kshatriyas had come? Kindly remove this doubt of mine. There is no greater source of knowledge than
Krishna’s account is against that of Vaishyampayana
On this doubt of Yudhishthara, Krishna told him a lot of history of Parshuram. He told him that
Parshuram killed the Kshatriya children also. But the earth flourished with Kshatriyas from the lives in the
womb of pregnant women. Then Parshuram started destroying the fetuses as soon as women got pregnant.
Even then, some Kshatriya women saved their sons, Krishna told him. [shanti parva 49.54,55 full verses
Later Parshuram performed Horse Sacrifice and gifted the earth to Kashyapa. After this to preserve
Kshatriyas Kashyapa asked Parshuram to go to coastal regions of south sea. And also told him not to stay
in his area under any circumstances. Then Kashyapa handed over the earth to Brahmins and went away to
great forest. After his departure the Shudras and Vaishyas who had become promiscuous started cohabiting
with Brahmin women. There was chaos in the world. Stronger started hurting the weak. After the stoppage
of Kshatriya protection of earth as per rules laid down, after a time, the earth went to ‘rasa-tal’ — the
nether worlds. Then she requested Kashyapa to bring the strong Kshatriyas.
The earth said to Kashyapa: [shanti parva 49.66-75 full verses quoted]
“O Brahmin, there are in existence among human beings great Kshatriyas protected by me.”
So saying she narrated the names of several Kshatriyas and assured him that they could protect her.
The earth told him, using the plural forms, that there were several Kshatriyas even in the Hayhay kula
itself, the original race which had enmity with Parshuram — that is, Krishna told this history to
Yudhishthara. Apart from the Hayhayas, many other names of Kshatriya descendants were told by the earth
who assured that they will protect her and she will become stable. These names included, Vidurathsut
descendant of Pauravas, Saurkarma descendant of Saudasa, Gopati son of Shibi, Vatsa son of Pratardana,
Anga son of Divirath and grandson of Dadhivahana, Mahabahu Bahidratha, three Kshatriyas like
Turvasuche Marutpati from the clan of Maruttas.
After telling all this to Yudhishthara, Krishna said: [shanti parva, 49. 78, 79]
“O son of Pandu, after that, Kashyapa respectfully brought those Kshatriyas, the protectors of
earth, and crowned them. The descendants of their sons and grand sons flourished as Kshatriyas. This
is what happened about the things you asked me.”
He then departed, along with all of them, elsewhere after telling this to Yudhishthara.
Here I am not narrating the whole struggle of Parshuram with Kshatriyas. That I will do separately
some other time. Here I am mentioning only a few important points.
Vaishyampayana corrupts Krishna’s history
Whatever was told about Kshatriyas to Yudhishthara by Krishna, in Mahabharata is put in the mouth
of Vaishyampayana and that too telling to Janmejaya. This means that this account was known to
Vaishyampayana or let us say to the author or editor of Mahabharata. We have already seen in the
beginning what the very same Vaishyampayana had told Janmejaya about the Kshatriyas. The account of
Krishna, it is clear, is chronologically of earlier period because he has told to Arjuna Yudhishthara etc.
whereas Vaishyampayana’s account is narrated to Janmejaya the great grandson of Arjuna. Even after the
genocide of Kshatriyas by Parshuram, the fact, that there were many powerful Kshatriyas is existence and
Kshatriya race thrived from then, as told by Krishna to Yudhishthara, was known to Vaishyampayana.
Even then Vaishyampayana told blatant lies to Janmejaya. How history was corrupted is clear from this
account. Even the account of Krishna is brahminized to some extent. For example, the Mahabharata which
describes that Kshatriya women went begging to Brahmin men for procreation and these Brahmin sages
only fulfilled their duties by impregnating them. The very same Mahabharata calls Shudras and Vaishyas
men ‘promiscuous’ when it comes to narrating their relations with Brahmin women. It is clear from this
how these people express the malaise and venom in their mind while writing each and every word — each
and every sentence. The Kshatriyas and others did not do the work of writing history themselves. They
entrusted it to Brahmins, say either by trust or by laziness. The result was this dishonor. This is not an
exceptional example of corruption of history, the entire history is corrupted like this.
This is kind of abusing after mother
Now I turn to a very important point. If one has to insult ones opponent to very great extent, one utters
abuse about the chastity of some woman member in the family of opponent like mother, sister, wife etc. We
often see such acts in social life, to call abusing names like their chastity is defiled or actually perform the
act of defiling them. From this mentality alone has given rise to numerous abuses concerning mother sister
etc. What the Brahmins put in the mouth of Vaishyampayana about the story of Kshatriya women is just
like abusing Kshatriyas in the same sort of way.
Vain boasting of Brahmins and their day dreams
Such kind of abuse is never an indication of real happenings, but an indication of the wily thoughts of
abuser. Brahmin authors have been dreaming of such pervert dreams about women specially non-brahmin
women. What can not be done in actual practice, they have boasted to have done reality. Let us again see a
statement hating Bahujans from Atharva veda, which I have repeated many times in my books. The gist of
this rule is that if a Brahmin holds the hand of a woman already having ten non-brahmin husbands, then he
alone is her husband. It is the Brahmin who is always husband and not Kshatriya or Vaishya. This is what
is being constantly declared by Sun in front of five humans (four varnas and one outcaste society). This rule
is in Atharva veda, which is considered by Hindus as their holy book.
Dishonor of ‘Tulsi’
Taking advantage of this rule from Atharvaveda, how ceremonials are created in actual practice can
be seen from the rituals of “Marriage of Tulsi”. Tulsi is Vrunda, the chaste wife of Asur Emperor
Jalandhar. Some tricky Brahmin, considered to be Vishnu, defiles her chastity and the agonized Vrunda
commits suicide by jumping into fire. But now this chaste Vrunda, that is Tulsi, is married every year not to
her real husband Jalandhar but to the very person who defiles her and compels her to kill herself. Bahujans
have blindly accepted this ritual and considered as sacred. [A separate book is written by Salunkhe on the
subject. — Tr.]
Dishonor of Queens in Horse Sacrifice
During the horse sacrifice, the brahmin priest (rittvij) utters such obscene dialogues that it shameful
for a civilized person to repeat or write them. One of the ‘dharma sutras’ mentions that a ‘ksotriya’, wellversed
in Vedas, and the he goat are both full of sexual lust. The dialogues of these priests at horse sacrifice
easily prove the same point. In spite of this, some Universities in modern times name their sports events as
Rama is depicted as a Slave of Brahmins
Rama, in the eyes of majority of people, is a respectable personality. But during the period, when
Manusmriti is created, he was completely brahminized. To use his personality dear to Bahujans but to
depict him as a king always acting as a slave of Brahmins, was the technique employed. As a matter of fact,
the original Ramayana does not contain the episodes of Rama abandoning Sita and of Rama killing Shudra
sage Shambuka for his ‘tapashya’ (austerity) to revive back to life an untimely died Brahmin child. After
the Manusmriti waged a war against women and Shudras, the Brahmins interpolated these episodes in
Rama’s name. Thus, they remained aloof themselves but instilled in the society and propagated the anti-
Shudra and anti-women values they wanted, in the name of Rama.
False and derogatory remarks secretly expressed about Rama
Other venomous tactics were used to declare Rama as slavish devotee of Brahmins. It was a nasty
wily thought impressed on the minds of society about the story of his birth. King Dashratha was incapable
for procreation, which means Rama etc. were not his real children. At the time of ‘putra kameshti yajnya’,
he got his queens impregnated by a Brahmin priest Rishi Shrung. [Chitrav Shastri, op cit, p.98] All this
means, what was frankly put in Mahabharata about origin of Kshatriyas in story of Parshuram, is also
mentioned about birth of Rama here. To construct such entirely false stories was very simple and natural
act for these Brahmin writers. Because such wily tricks are not yet properly exposed many great scholars
drew unpleasant inferences—but that is not our subject now.
Bhishmacharya cornered
In later times, while constructing the stories of Bhishmacharya, Vichitravirya, Vyasa etc., a lot of
fraud is committed. The subject needs a detailed discussion and I will deal with it separately if time
permits. Now only a few salient points are mentioned. It is told to us that Bhishmacharya vowed to remain
celibate all his life for the sake of his father. But the matter is not so simple. Bhishmacharya was a great
dynamic person. Therefore, the Brahmins thought they would not be able to interfere in the state matters if
he or his sons come to throne. Many an intrigue and conspiracy was hatched so that Sambhaji should not
come to throne after Shivaji. There is no doubt that similar plot was engineered to keep Bhishma away.
It is told that after the death of childless Vichitravirya, progeny was created on his wives through
‘Niyoga’ by Brahmin Vyasa. I feel there are two possibilities. First, the conspiracy of Brahmins, to call a
Brahmin for ‘Niyoga’ instead of a Kshatriya and thus to bring the whole reigning clan under Brahmin
subjugation, was successful. Second, a story to denigrate the Kshatriyas was created and incorporated in
Mahabharata. in either case, it is an attempt to maintain Brahmin supremacy. For the time being this is all
on the subject.
Brahmins encroached in the Niyoga
It is worth noting the encroachments by Brahmins in making the rules for ‘Niyoga’. There used to be
permission for husband’s brother or a person of the same ‘varna’ to procreate on the wife, as an
unavoidable evil, in case the husband dies childless or is unable to impregnate. This rule was justifiable as
per the norms of the then society because the child born was from the seed of the same family. But even
this attracted their attention and here also the Brahmins encroached and included their name in the list of
men suitable for ‘Niyoga’. This clearly shows how immorally they used their right of creating the rules in
Kshatriyas should utter ‘pravars’ of priest, they say.
There is a rule that during certain yajnyas, the host should utter the names of his ‘pravars’, that is his
ancestors. The Dharmashastra tells us that if the host is Brahmin, he should utter the names of his ancestors.
But if the host is a Kshatriya, he should utter the names of the ancestors of the priest instead of his own
ancestors. This rule, no doubt, denotes the wicked mentality of Brahmins.
Biography of Krishna is distorted
Krishna was a great hero of Bahujans. The offerings going to Vedic Indra was distributed by him
among the cowherds and faced the anger of Indra for it. He is well known as the highest philosopher in
Indian culture. Even as a godhead, as an ‘avatar’ of Vishnu he is well known.
Brahmin authors, distorted to the hilt, such a personality. On one side he is depicted, like Rama, as
subservient to Brahmins. On the other, his moral character is torn into pieces. They said, that he took away
the clothes of ‘gopis’, that he was acting immorally with them. If he were taking away the clothes of gopis,
would the people of that town consider him as their leader? Would he have been respected as a
philosopher? Would the people in town allowed him inside the threshold of their houses? Or rather, would
they have allowed him to stay within the bounds of town? Would they not have killed him? When the very
character of Radha is itself imaginary, what is the relevance of gopis and their clothes? These authors
poured in all the pervert lust about women in their minds in writing this account in the name of Krishna as
it was not possible to put these ideas in their own name, reducing him to a level of a promiscuous person. In
the name of Krishna, these authors took an opportunity to paint the obscene descriptions of the female
anatomy of Bahujan women. In the eyes of these authors, Krishna became such a peg that anybody would
hang the bag of his lust on it. What a great misuse of writing and speech!
See these rules about Bahujan women in scriptures
Manusmriti says that, a Brahmin possessed of lust can marry woman from all four varnas, namely
Brahmin, Kshatriya, Vaishya and Shudra. A Kshatriya, however, can not marry a Brahmin woman. In
marriages there is an important ritual of ‘pani-grahan’, i.e. holding the hand of bride by bridegroom. But
when a Kshatriya girl marries a Brahmin boy, it is enjoined, that this ritual should not be performed.
Manusmriti says that the girl should hold the arrow in the hand of the man. This means, the marriage of a
Brahmin man and a Kshatriya woman is not a real marriage. In a way, she becomes his concubine.
Therefore, this Kshatriya wife does not get the rights bestowed on a Brahmin wife in religious rites.
In cases of rape or illicit sex, Manusmriti generally prescribes death penalty to a non-brahmin. But a
Brahmin man is not punished for such offences with a non brahmin woman. If a Brahmin man commits
such a crime with a Brahmin woman, he is punishable by minor fine. And this fine imposed for offence
with brahmin woman can also be condoned by another rule. It is enough to quote the rules from Manusmriti
without any comments on them:
“If a non-Brahmin commits an adultery, he is punished by death penalty. ... if a Shudra man
has sex with a Brahmin woman who is unprotected by her husband etc., his penis should be cut and all
his property should be confiscated. If he has sex with a protected Brahmin woman, all his property
should first be confiscated and then he be given death penalty. ... If a Kshatriya or Vaishya man has
sex with a protected Brahmin woman, he should be punished like a Shudra man or should be burnt
alive in a grass pyre. ... If a Brahmin man rapes a protected Brahmin woman, he should be fined one
thousand coins. If he commits adultery with her, with her consent, he should be fined five hundred
coins. ... For whatever sin committed by him, a Brahmin man should never be put to death. Keeping
his body unharmed, he should be driven out of the kingdom along with all his wealth.”
Even Puranas have made rules to the extent that a prostitute should only have a Brahmin man as her
first customer. This explains the level of morality of these authors. There are innumerable such rules,
insulting Bahujan women and also men, in the Brahminic books under the garb of hindutva.
What more can I do, apart from appealing to your self respect?
The question before me is that, what stand the Bahujan society is going to take after knowing such
nature of these Brahminic books. Heart-rending fact is that, even now, there are many people from Bahujan
society who consider these books as holy. These people feel hurt at heart, if someone criticises these books.
What more can I do, under such circumstances, apart from appealing to their self-respect, dignity, selfesteem,
and pride?
How can Parshuram be respectable to us?
I like to earnestly mention my experience in this regard. Once I had an occasion to visit an aristocratic
family, who considered themselves as Kshatriyas. I was highly agonised by a photo on the entrance to his
chambers from the drawing room. There was a huge portrait of Parshuram over it—a picture with a robust
body, bow and arrow in the hand, a pouch full of arrows on the back and awesome features. What should I
call such a mentality of a family, so proud of its Kshatriya origin, worshiping the very Parshuram, who
destroyed the Kshatriya seed by killing the children in mothers’ wombs, as per a vicious declaration by the
Mahabharata? One is anguished to the extreme seeing this kind of seeds of slavery sown in the heads of
Bahujans by Brahminic terror. How can we consider Parshuram respectable as an avatar of our god? And
how can we consider that part of Mahabharata which tells the story of Parshuram, as our holy book? At
least I can not understand this.
We will not allow these stigmata of slavery to remain
I always wonder, how our self-respect is not hurt, when we put our heads on the feet of the very same
people who made such extremely dirty and insulting rules about our society and specially our women. I am
not writing this to create fire of hate and revenge against somebody. For those, who accuse me of such
things, I humbly wish to tell them that, had I wished so, I would have explained in entirely different style. I
wish to say that, I have dealt very mildly with these Brahminic rules which are heart rending for us. But
one thing is certain. Though we are not going to do anything with a hot head, but we will not stop the war
against our cultural freedom under any circumstances. Now, we will not allow these stigmata of slavery on
our self-respect to remain.
Prohibited to think
The scriptures have written a lot more about the Kshatriyas. As a sample, I quote a few examples.The
Shatpath Brahmana says,
“Brahmin thinks and a Kshatriya (accordingly) acts. ... There is no harm if a Brahmin has no
king or a Kshatriya. Of course, if he gets a king, he would be benefited. But it is harmful for a
Kshatriya to remain without a Brahmin. Whatever a Kshatriya does without an order from a Brahmin
friend, it will be unsuccessful. Therefore, a Kshatriya wishing to do anything must first go to a
Brahmin. This is because the work done by him according to the orders of Brahmin, will only be
This book has given an indication to Kshatriyas that a Kshatriya should not bother to think.
Do not use your intellect independently. Do not decide yourselves, who your friends are and who your
enemies are. Do not decide the nature of your own religion. In short, the book enjoins the Kshatriyas to
believe entirely in the Brahmins. To ask any society to let its intellect rust is it not a method making it
a slave?
Kshatriya as a Guru
This also explains, why a Kshatriya is not given a right to become a guru, a preceptor. A guru gives
direction to the thoughts of his disciples. Guru impresses upon the minds of his disciples what should be
worshipped and what should be despised. In short, he moulds up the entire set up of the disciple’s mind.
The Brahmins kept to themselves the monopoly to become a guru, just to turn the minds of Bahujan samaj
favorable to the vested interest of Brahmins. It was enjoined by a rule that, if a Brahmin does not get a
Brahmin guru and under compulsion has to make a non-Brahmin his guru, it is enjoined, he should not
serve him like a Brahmin guru. Not only this, but after the end of learning, the Brahmin disciple becomes
the guru of his Kshatriya guru. This was the rule.
Kshatriya as a ruler
Brahmins have never accepted the Kshatriya kings as their real rulers. Their stand was that their real
king was Soma — a Brahmin ‘ritviz’ having the authority to drink soma. The Kshatriya kings were denied
the right to drink soma. The Brahmins have become successful in making the Kshatriya kings drink the
juice of roots of pipal and Bunyan tree. They made laws that the reign of Kshatriya kings extends to all
except the Brahmins. They also made laws that kings should not take any taxes from Brahmins. A street
belongs to king, but only till such time that a Brahmin does not come to that street. This law is self
Discriminatory Laws
In the eyes of a Brahmin, a non-Brahmin can not be ‘atithee’ — a guest. The scriptures enjoin
that, if a Kshatriya is at all invited to a yajnya, he should be given food after all the Brahmins have eaten. It
was a law that, a Brahmin can not be brought before the court of law as a witness on the statement of a nonbrahmin.
Only the non-brahmins should be made to take an oath in court to speak truth, Brahmins should
not be made to take such an oath, says the religion. Innumerable such examples of laws discriminating in
favor of Brahmins could be quoted, such as: While saluting, only the non-brahmin should bend. A ten year
old Brahmin, is like a father to a hundred year old Kshatriya. Brahmin should not touch the feet of a nonbrahmin.
Only the non-brahmins be given death sentence for killing a Brahmin, etc.
Have Brahmins cut down the sensations of Bahujans?
My simple question is: the books that contain such laws, could they be sacred to us? That time, we were
prohibited to think so should we continue to tread the same path of not thinking? If we deny these books
which are insulting us, is the god going to be angry on us? Is our religion going to be drowned if we protect
our self-respect? And suppose the religion that is anathema to our dignity is drowned, is the heaven goings
to fall over us? Are we not going to use any of our power to decide as to how we should lead our lives?
Have the Brahmins cut down all our sensations in our existence to feel our dishonor, with the weapon of
Kshatriyas made Shudras in Kali age
There is no limit to the number of honest and virtuous people tortured by this religion. Brahmins
oppressed all those Bahujan loving kings who tried to deny the Brahminic social order, right from Vena,
Nimi, Nahusha to Rajashri Shahu. I am going to write a separate book on this topic, if time permits. Here, I
am discussing some examples of selected individuals. These are known to many, but it is essential to
explain the religious background. Specially we have to see some of the cases where Brahmins have insulted
the Kshatriyas in ancient times and also in Kali age how the Kshatriyas were considered as Shudras and
were deprived of various rights and further degraded.
Great personality 0like Saint Namdeva was driven out of a temple while narrating a ‘kirtana’—an
exposition—because of his Shudra caste. About such a personality who had attained full maturity in the
field of noble life values, they propagated false stories declaring him as ‘raw earthen pot’. They tortured the
young Dnyaneshwara brothers to extreme. They drowned the books of poetry of great souls like Saint
Tukarama. Because of Shudra caste, he was denied the authority to write about religion, it was declared
that he had no right to express his opinions, and was tortured to extreme.
Chatrapati Shivaji was such a towering personality. Being brave, accomplished, courageous, full of
good qualities, meritorious, judicious, Shivaji was such a great soul that, all the adjectives in any language
would fall short to describe him. He created a universe from zero. He hazarded his life in peril to protect
that religion, and the leaders of the very same religion denied him the right of coronation because of Shudra
caste. They declared that he had no right to the Vedic ‘mantras’. Not one single Vedic priest came forward
to coronet him. But the Brahmins tried their level best to swallow the kingdom created by him with great
danger to his life. They declared his son Sambhaji as promiscuous, with that intention. They plotted to
imprison him and hand him over to the Moguls. They denigrated him by the false propaganda.
Later, when they saw Rajarshi Shahu trying his best to liberate the Bahujans, they got so aggrieved
that they heaped extreme mental torture on him.
Should we be proud of our own dishonor?
I am extremely agonised to see that even after being surrounded by such extremely cruel and wily
circumstances, the Bahujan-samaj is not showing any courage to try and face the natural inferences arising
out of this situation. If we have got great respect for Saint Tukarama, it is beyond my understanding, how
can all these Brahminic religious books responsible for drowning his poetry, be our own?
Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj has done such a great epoch making work, that every one of us should
bow his head again and again. Then, I also do not understand, how that religion can be ours, the very
leaders of which, opposed the crowning of Shivaji. If Maharaj was a Hindu, and if the Vedas are the holy
books of the Hindus, the people saying that Shivaji has no right to hear the vedic mantras of the very same
religion, is it not a form of slavery to think that they are our brethren-in-religion?
Under these circumstances, I think, we should throw away these cobwebs of slavery from our
minds. This is not a game of sentimental appeal or an attempt to arouse emotions. If we continue to worship
those who dishonoured our sources of inspiration, we will never come out of our dreadful mean lowly
helpless and ignoble condition.
What should we be proud of?
Today, our young boys are taught to say, ‘garv se kaho ham hindu hai’ (say proudly - we are
hindus). We are Hindus, what does it exactly mean? Who are we? What has the ‘hindutva’ given to our
share? Which numbered grade of Hindus, are we? Was Dnyaneswara not a Hindu? Then why he and his
brothers were tortured? Were the torturers some Hindu hater non-Hindus? Or were they the Brahmins in
the disguise of Hindus? The temple where Saint Namdeva was expounding a ‘kirtana’, was it not a Hindu
temple? And who were those who drove him away? What are all those things about which we should be
proud of? Should we be proud of those Hindu religious books, on the strength of which poetry of Tukarama
was drowned or on the strength of which the coronation of Shivaji was opposed? Those of us, who wish to
lead a life of like a human being and maintain their own self-respect, should think calmly about all these
Social and Cultural Life of Non-brahmins
The religious and cultural life given to the non-brahmins by the Brahmins has made the former a
secondary follower of this religion. Those of non-brahmins having first grade and at times much higher
merit than Brahmins are also treated as lower than an average Brahmin. The prestige and opportunity a
Brahmin of ordinary caliber gets without any efforts, is not available, even after a great struggle for life
time, to the most meritorious non-brahmin. The numerous cruel and insulting laws made by Brahmins in
their religious books are hurting the hearts of non-brahmins. They create the feelings of self pity among
them. In short, the Brahmins have erected a machinery, by the laws in their religious books, to make them
slaves and keep them slaves. The Brahmins have written millions of venomous statements about the nonbrahmins.
If even one statement of that kind is uttered by the non-brahmins about brahmins, the latter will
go mad, get highly aggrieved and shower millions of stings. It would be too difficult for them to tolerate
this insult. Why then should the non-brahmins tolerate such insults of Brahmins? Why should they lead
their lives as slaves of Brahmins even though they are fully capable of leading their lives respectfully. The
Brahmins have tried their best, throughout the span of history, to make non-brahmins their slaves. Now the
non-brahmins have two different and clear alternatives—whether to live as helpless slaves of Brahmins or
to lead a life of self respect as a free human being. If the Brahmins wish to make non-brahmin their slaves
and use their religion as their weapon for this purpose, how can the religion of the non-brahmins, the slaves
and the religion of the Brahmins, those who want to make them slaves, be the same?
Since times immemorial, numerous men and women tried their best to change the Brahminic social order of
Brahmin supremacy and bring in a healthy order based on equality, by appealing to the reason of Brahmins.
But the tragedy of cultural life in this country is that, Brahmins paid no heed to these appeals.
They can not see wounds on our heart
I, myself, have through all my writings and speeches, appealed earnestly to the conscience of the
Brahmins. But all my mild appeals brought me their hate and despise. They tried to malign me as hater and
a castiest. They did not bother to understand, with a few exceptions, what my aim is and what I am trying
to say. Even those so-called progressive Brahmins could not see the wounds on my heart. And these
wounds on my heart are not wounds on my heart alone but are the wounds on the hearts of whole of the
Bahujan Samaj.
This is their ‘All India’-ness
An example will clarify my point. On 18th January 2002, an All India Marathi Literary Conference
was organized in Pune. The photos of inauguration ceremony were published on 19th January. One caption
said: the conference was inaugurated by Shiv shahir Babasahib Purandare, Present on the occasion (from
left) are Chairman of Welcome Committee Dnyaneshawr Aagashe, Treasurer D.S.Kulkarni, shri Purandare,
Working president Mukund Anagal, outgoing president Dr. Vijaya Rajadhaksha, president designate
Rajendra Banhatti, chief secretary of welcome committee Mohan Date, and the president of all India
sahitya mahamandal Dr. G. N. Joglekar.
Appeal to change the core of Literary meets
After reading this news, I commented on it in my speeches in Hingoli and Amaravati. I appealed
“See the surnames of those present on the dais of this conference. It will clarify whether the
Conference is ‘All India’ or not. Just the name “All India” would not do, but, that the core content of the
Conference must be changed.”
He broke 45 years of friendship for ‘brahmanya’
An example of the responses I got to this appeal was a phone call from a Brahmin friend having
friendly relations with me for 40 - 45 years. He said, ‘Anna, you always said that your war is not against
any caste but against the tendency. Then why did you mention the caste of those present in conference? Are
you not, thereby, increasing divisions in the society? I was pained and also surprised by his talk. For the
sake of improper support to Brahminism, he broke the friendship of 45 years.
He did not see the increase of divisions of the society in not taking a single representative, even
for name’s sake, from 95 per cent of population, and give opportunity to only 5 five percent, and had the
audacity to pretend they represent whole of India by calling such a conference ‘all India’. I, who said such a
conference is not all-compassive, in his eyes, was considered as an agent of the divisive forces. Personally,
I have no grudge against these eight persons. I do not deny their right to attend the conference. I only wish
to say that, the base of such ceremonies must be socially wide. But this small expectation of mine was
considered as treason against society, and their action was mark of high culture. It clarifies the great and
cruel duplicity in the social structure of this country. My question is: why should we be the victims of this
This is not an exceptional episode
This conference is not a lone exceptional example in the cultural history of India. This is only a
representative form of the discriminatory and unjust laws on the pages after pages of the Brahminic
religious books. We are considered as gentle religious and pious if we meekly admit the system of slavery
imposed on us by Brahmins. We get some little recognitions as a piece of the thrown away crumbs. If we
accept what the Brahmins say, then we get some little prestige. The only remedy is to play their tune. We
have to consider their dignitaries as heroes, even if they are our enemies. We have to consider their hate
objects as our hate objects even though they may be our well wishers. This is the only way open to us. If
we do not follow this path and use our brain to ask them some polite questions, use our intellect to express
some doubts, we are labeled as betrayer of religion and traitors of nation. We get some small place in this
system, only if we ourselves destroy the buds of our own spouting excellence. About the episode on the
dais of Pune conference of all the dignitaries being from one single Brahmin caste, let somebody
impartially say:, is the instance more castiest and denoting divisive tendencies or my comments on it are
more castiest and divisive. It is needless to say, the Brahminic social order has already declared me castiest.
Vast number of masses are getting choked
I am not alone, who is suffocated in this Brahminic social order, but a vast population is suffering.
They are kicking us and not allow us to even groan. The mind of masses is anxious to fly in the sky but the
fetters of religion bind his feet. He is dreaming of life of self respect, but a wily religion has fettered him in
shackles of slavery. Well now, if the life is suffocating in this slavery, one must search for a way to be from
it. I see three possible ways.
The appeal to Brahmins rationality is not possible
The first way would be that, the Brahmins themselves should renounce their special privileges and
adopt a new religious order based on equality. The important aspect of this would be to review the old
religious books and while accepting what is good, discard everything that is evil. During this process, not
only the gist but also the names of these scriptures will have to be changed. In short, these books will be
required to be made all-compassive, respectful to all and giving equal opportunities to all. Or rather, new
religious books will have to be written replacing the old ones. This is the best way of creating utmost unity
among the Indian masses. But the Brahmins are least likely to adopt this method. All the appeals made to
their conscience, during last three four millennia, have all gone vain. If the situation is adverse, they will,
for a time being, retrogress a few steps, wait for suitable opportunity and will again try their best to
strengthen their grip on the masses. There can be no doubt about this. Thus, this way is useless for the
Bahujans to liberate themselves from the Brahminic slavery.
Brahmins will not leave the garb of Hindutva
The second way of liberating themselves from the Brahminic slavery for Bahujans is to drive them
away from Hindu religion. Their religion is “Vedic Brahminism”. They are free to lead their own lives the
way they want. They should not call themselves as Hindus. That’s all. But there are difficulties in accepting
this path too. Firstly, if Vedic Brahmins separate themselves with their scriptures etc., others will have to
create new scriptures to fill the gap in religious books and ceremonials etc. Of course, in the third option
also this will have to be done. Secondly, the media of propaganda being in the hands of Brahmins, they will
not loosen their customary grip on the word ‘Hindu’. Not that they have love for this word. They do not see
their identity in hindutva, but in ‘brahmanya’ only. In spite of this they will have to create an illusion of
broad based all-compassiveness, to have dominance over the Bahujan masses here. For this purpose, the
mask of Hindutva is essential. Naturally, to religiously separate from them, the way of declaring them as
non-hindus, though not impossible, is indeed very difficult. It is so difficult that it is more or less
One thing is certain: This religion is not ours
The third way out of this situation is to declare that our religion is different from Vedic Brahminism.
The religion which dishonours us, deprives us from all opportunities, which keeps us in darkness, and in
short makes us a slave, how can that religion be ours?
That way, the Indian society has now become racially, unified to a large extent. As projected by
Rabindranath Tagore in his poem ‘Hethay Arya, hetha anarya’, all the streams of Aryans and Non-Aryans
etc. exist in our blood now. Therefore, I consider even Brahmins to be genetically our brethren in flesh and
blood. But what is the use of me, or people like me, unilaterally saying so? We declare the near and dear
relationship with them and either they discard us or take us near to make use of us for their vested interests.
This can not be the method of religious unity.
Whose religion can be the same? The religion of only those is same who have love, concern,
attachment and affinity among themselves. Those, whose idols and ideals are same and the subject matters
of pride are same, they only can be of the same religion. They only can be of the same religions, whose life
values are same and who have equal rights in religious matters.
It can be proved by thousand and one ways that the religion of Brahmins and non-brahmins can not be
the same if we apply various such criteria. The religion of the class which is exploiting on the basis of
religion and the religion of the class which is victim of this exploitation, also on the basis of religion, can
not be the same. To consider these religions to be same means legitimizing the exploitation. The
advantages are in the side of exploiters and therefore, it is clear that, they will try their best to maintain the
state of exploitation. But when the victims of the system try to maintain on their own lives the continuance
of the system of their own exploitation, what else can one call it, other than slavery?
We welcome those who wish to argue against the inference that, the religion of Brahmins and religion
of the Bahujans are not same. If somebody puts forward the serious moral grounds to prove that the
religions of both are the same, we will definitely consider these arguments. But we will not waste our time
in lingering discussions over the shallow, arrogant and senseless arguments in support of the system of
exploitation. Whatever it may be, in the present circumstances, one thing is dead certain, that the religion of
Brahmins can not be our own religion. And we are, therefore, declaring undoubtedly that it is not our
The reasons of denying Brahminism
The reasons behind our declaration are already clear but again as a summery, I mention them below:
• 1 This religion is not created by us. It has not voluntarily sprung up from amongst us. We
have not accepted it ourselves of our free will. It has been thrust upon us from outside.
• 2. We have no authority to frame its rules or to change them as need arises. We have no
freedom to analyze it.
• 3. It does not think of our welfare or wellbeing. But it is tyrannical to us. It erodes away the
feeling of humanity from within us.
• 4. It compels us to commemorate the moments of our defeats as our festivals and
• 5. It impresses on our minds the “sanskaras” of self-indignity such that we should denounce
our own forefathers and worship the immoral forefathers of Brahmins.
• 6. It distorts the History.
• 7. It does not believe that all people in our own religion are equal as human beings.
• 8. It deprives us from all proper opportunities of development.
• 9. It has tortured all those who have tried for our cultural freedom. And this tendency has
not changed even now.
• 10. In this religion, there are no ‘sanskaras’ to give proper respect to women.
Many more reasons could be narrated but as guide lines, these would be enough. From all these
reasons, I declare my verdict again that, ONE THING IS CERTAIN: THIS IS NOT OUR