Post by Aj_June on Jul 29, 2018 4:11:35 GMT
People are, fundamentally, animals. Highly social mammalian animals. We are a very territorial species with a strong sense of hierarchy and dominance in relationships. Most of us are naturally inclined to follow whomever stands out, through personal charisma and/or raw physical strength, as a leader.
Those who can establish a position of authority will tend to try to preserve it. Religion is one of the most effective tools toward that end, in that it defines a body of rules (or laws, if you will) governing the behavior of the community that cannot be challenged.
So organized religion is at its essence a tool for social control and for the maintenance of the positions of power of those at the top of the social hierarchy, regardless of what the adherents of the religion may claim, or actually believe, is the purpose of the religion. (NB: If it isn't already clear, I am speaking here about organized systems of religion as opposed to the personal superstitions of individuals.) The tendency of religion toward "traditions that are not so good" is a feature, not a bug; and the notion that religion is meant to seek truth just makes it all the more enticing, and thus more effective as a tool for social control. Of course, there are forms of organized religion that aspire to equality of all. But they are the exceptions that have deviated from the usual order.
Even though I was born in a Vaishnavite family I find it extremely hypocritical that HK people are so derogatory towards people of other faiths. Almost all other Hindus not only give respects to other sects of Hinduism but also hold religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Buddhism and Islam in a very high regard. Giving respect to other faiths is the primary Hindu value which people like M.K.Gandhi, Vivekananda and other great people had reiterated time and again.
Dr Ambedkar was unsparing in his analysis of M.K. Gandhi on this point. Gandhi preached equality to the Western audience while hewing to Hindu orthodoxy to a local audience.
I only found out about this from reading and hearing Arundhati Roy talking about it.
for example:
Religions are prone to all sorts of nonsense but the intent of the religion itself is not to create bad traditions that exploit people. That is an end result of process of maintaining the religion. Religions start with an intent to do something well. I already mentioned feudalism to represent social hierarchy in my previous post.
I remember for many years that I said organised religions are prone to a lot of corruption. Well, this may be true. But unorganised religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism are just as much prone to social evils as the organised religions. Both Hinduism and Buddhism are the biggest unorganised religions but if you examine the social hierarchy structure of India and Tibet and extent of misogyny in Japan until 50 years ago then you have the answers. Human beings can be exploitive even at local level. They do not need a direct authority to do so.
Those who can establish a position of authority will tend to try to preserve it.
That is 100% correct and as you said that is a feature of human beings. So I am not sure if religions are only prone to be corrupted or political systems as well. I usually do not see western people so closely examining and critiquing political systems as they examine religions.
But isn't the caste system a fundamental part of virtually all, if not all, traditional forms of Hinduism?
What respect do the "upper" castes show to the Dalits? As I recall, during one of my first trips to India, a little more than 15 years ago now, an upper-caste man beat a lower-caste man to death because the lower-caste man had taken too long to get out of the way of the upper-caste man's car. Just a few weeks ago, a Dalit was allegedly killed by a Kshatriya for daring to own and ride a horse, which is forbidden.
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43605550
What respect do the "upper" castes show to the Dalits? As I recall, during one of my first trips to India, a little more than 15 years ago now, an upper-caste man beat a lower-caste man to death because the lower-caste man had taken too long to get out of the way of the upper-caste man's car. Just a few weeks ago, a Dalit was allegedly killed by a Kshatriya for daring to own and ride a horse, which is forbidden.
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-43605550
Casteism was until recently a feature of almost all religious people in India (Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and even Christians) however it did not become such repressive system until British colonialist started putting a lot of pressure on Indian society by draining out resources. That said things have improved a lot since 1947 to the extent that the recovery measures have become exploitive for non-dalits who do not have reservations. The current dalits such as Mayawati (who is ex-chief minister of India's biggest province or the current president of India) enjoy a lot of privileges. So much that there are statues of living dalits worth 100s millions of dollars and parks dedicated to them. 50% of the jobs are already reserved for Dalits and tribals. In my own hometown I could not have stood for election as a member of Parliament because the seat was reserved for Dalits and has been for over 25 years. Ambedkar was totally wrong about Gandhi (Gandhi was not a Brahmin or kshatriye either). Ambedkar derived a living out of his one single fight while Gandhi fought for a much bigger cause. Gandhi did more to liberate the conditions of Dalits than any other person in modern India. That is one of the reasons why Gandhi is hated by the Hindu right wingers and traditionalist upper caste people.
And not all forms of traditional Hinduism was riddled with rigorous casteism. It was more a feature of Vaishnavism (which became biggest sect by 11th century) than other sects.