One reason for the media-hype to the Shankaracharya, and his ludicrous suggestion of "swastik" temples, could be the inadequate - even incorrect - information that the English-language media have.The title of Shankaracharya does not mean that the incumbent has the power to rule over the lives and fortunes of Hindu society. Unlike the ``bulls'' - or edicts - and fatwas - issued by the Christian Pope and the Muslim Imam, a Shankaracharya's pronouncements just cannot have a `legislative' potential. At best, it is advice. Hence, the almost gleeful reportage as well as opinion on the subject can merely be sensational journalism or worse. I refer especially to A.J. Philip's article `Low cost for low caste' (IE, June 9), which is beset with some glaring misconceptions.The `fulcrum' of the Shankaracharya's mission, according to Philip's own admission, is the re-conversion of post-1947 converts. Therefore, all those who will reconvert are most likely to be credulous tribals who were enticed into taking the step within living memory. So, after re-conversion, they can go right back to their pristine `animism' without much difficulty. Thus, we can do eminently well without the Shankaracharya's `grace' to re-fit them into Hindu society.One feels that Pandita Ramabai (incidentally, Mr Printer's Devil, it is not Ramabhai!) most probably converted to Christianity not so much because she `found some of their (Vedic) prescriptions about women distasteful' (which unfortunately Philip avoids quoting), as because she had not read books like Langdon Davies' A Short History of Women, in which the author writes: "The naked back of woman felt the sting in the Christian Church, even more than before, of five lashes and their names were Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy."Irrelevant to the subject though they are, Philip's twin discoveries that "Brahmins had used Marathas against the Mughals by temporarily making them Kshatriyas" and that "they were made Shudras once the Peshwas superseded the Marathas" stand alone for their ingenuity! How he came to this brilliant inference is again sadly left unexplained. In any case, and contrary to what either Mahatma Phule or Dr Ambedkar may have had to say, there is no sanction in Hinduism for social stratification by birth. That was a later addition, more as a reaction to inimical alien influences.Both Mahatma Phule and Ambedkar had the choice to convert to `egalitarian' Christianity if they so desired. Indeed the latter had received lucrative offers for doing so along with his followers. The very fact that they rejected these overtures is ample evidence of the greater misfortune they anticipated in that prospect! Also, Ambedkar was of the firm view that Christianisation was tantamount to `de-nationalisation', for holding which, to be sure, he had solid, incontrovertible reasons! If the Syrian Christians had "taken pride in their Brahminical ancestry" in spite of conversion to `casteless' Christianity, it says a great deal about how `willingly' they were converted centuries ago! Evidence of the presence of the `quiet, unobtrusive labours of the preacher and the trader', Sir Thomas?We and that includes Philip as well must appreciate a few basic facets of the problem and the present cultural resurgence Hindu society is undergoing.First, the Hindu has as much of a right to practise and propagate his philosophy as any other Indian. Second, the role of `conviction' has always been minimal in the business of proselytisation. An overwhelmingly large majority of conversions have necessarily been through force and fraud. Third, the Hindu has the duty of checking secessionist tendencies undoubtedly resulting wholly from missionary activity, as in the Northeast. Fourth, the Shankaracharya has no business to issue diktats.In fine, let the columnist remain a columnist; he will achieve little by assuming the role of a calumnist!
