Author: Bharat Jhunjhunwala
Publication: The Pioneer
Date: December 25, 2000
The pivot of Indian governance
was the check of the Brahmin priest upon the Kshatriya rulers.
These Brahmins lived
independent of state and were rooted in the masses. At some point
in history, the pundits who neither lived independent of the state nor
were rooted in the masses declared themselves to be Brahmins and usurped
their privileges. These pundits became lackeys of the kings of the
day. The check of the Brahmins on the kings was removed and the Indian
kings fell into bad ways. This was the root cause of the decline
of India. This same usurpation of Brahminhood continues unabated
by the university professors of the day. Interested only in their
money, they have converted our institutions of higher education into instruments
of their money-making, and a fifth column which serves the interests of
foreign donors. They deserve strict ministerial control rather than
autonomy.
At the root of the problem
lies the historical confusion between jati and varna. Jati is the
occupation of a person by which he earns his livelihood. The khati
did carpentry and the sonar made ornaments. Varna, on the other hand,
depicts the character of the person. Each of the professions can
have persons belonging to all the four varna. A lawyer who works
for a salary is a Sudra; when he works to make pots of money, he is a Vaisya;
when he uses his lawyer's skills to enter into politics, he is a Kshatriya;
and, when he argues to establish the truth, he is a Brahmin. So also
among the other occupations. The Mahabharata has a story of a butcher
who gave discourses on spiritual issues. BR Ambedkar was a mahar
by family occupation but Brahmin by varna.
The Brahmin who checked
the excesses of the Kshatriya was such a truth-seeking person who lived
independent of the state, served no other, and was rooted in the masses.
These Brahmins rose from various occupations. A panwala could well
be a Brahmin and eligible to guide or restrain the king if his personal
character was such.
At some point in history
the pundits usurped the role of the Brahmin. A pundit is a learned
man. He can expound the texts. Like the lawyer, if he is a
Sudra by character, he can be employed by any person to expound the texts
as desired by his master. These pundits managed to declare themselves
to be Brahmins merely because they were expounding the texts. The
Brahmin panwala, who lived independent of the state and thought freely
of truth and social good, was sidelined. He was replaced by the pundit
who lived on the largesse of the state and did what the master desired.
The check of the Brahmin
on the king was destroyed. The king became the final authority.
The genuine Brahmins were sidelined and learned Sudras pseudo-Brahmins
were installed at the head of the society. The check of the Brahmin
on the government extinguished, no one thought of the social good, and
social bad became rule of the day. When Indian kings sold the country
to the English, the pundits were contented to have their slice of the cake;
and the voice of the Brahmin was feeble.
Our university professors
have continued this contemptible tradition. They live like Sudras
and preach like Brahmins. They have no compunction working for unscrupulous
foreign agencies. They create a favourable environment for foreign
investment, foreign media, and Clintons often in collusion with equally
unscrupulous NGOs and foundations who have previously been sent packing
for their anti-India activities. Backed by their fat salaries, they
write columns and indulge in politics that might suit their employers.
They spend their time fighting for retirement benefits and sabbaticals
rather than in the pursuit of truth.
Posing as Brahmin and
backed by foreign funds, they advise the government how to spend its money.
A foreign agency will give money to a professor who will sit on the advisory
committee of the government and decide whether public money will be spent
fighting AIDS or combating poverty. A foreign donor, for example,
paid a crore to organise a study and seminar which determined the direction
of Rs 2,000 crore of Indian money that is spent by GOI on watershed development.
The Sudra pundit is a key element of this infamous approach of the foreign
agencies.
It is these ignoble professors
living on government support who are now demanding autonomy for the higher
educational institutions. These wise Sudras do not want to be accountable
even to the ministers. They want the privileges of the Brahmin while
living the life of a Sudra. They fail to realise that a minister
is a Kshatriya and he is accountable to the electorate though after five
years. An autonomous institution would be accountable only to other
Sudra similarly placed.
A Sanskrit teacher, when
addressed as a Sudra, asked what was wrong with teaching Sanskrit by taking
a salary as long as the job was done honestly? The problem is that an honest
Sudra does not make a Brahmin. A Brahmin is one who is rooted in
the masses and can think of the social good. He is one whose lifestyle
is so frugal that considerations of his personal earning do not colour
his judgement. A university professor, on the other hand, works for
his salary, lives in comfortable university quarters, and seeks grants
and promotions. It is impossible to ascertain whether he is propounding
a thesis so that he can get a UN consultancy or because he genuinely believes
in it. There is nothing wrong with one teaching sanskrit for a salary.
But there is plenty wrong is demanding autonomy for doing so. Another
professor of a national institution asked why only the teachers should
be targeted when the entire system was equally corrupted? The university
professors are indeed specially targeted because they claim for themselves
the hallowed position of Brahmin and, by default, denigrate the panwala
who is genuinely so.
Vice chancellors of universities
flaunt data on the number of books and academic papers published by their
teachers. Wonderful. But that only means that they are good
Sudra pundits. Period. Books do not make a Brahmin. Ramana
Maharshi wrote very little, as have many of our sages. They could
have written books to please some foreign donors, to get a dollar-denominated
consultancy assignment or as a ticket to a foreign university. How
is social good attained by those books has to be examined by someone, which
has to be the minister.
The problem is important.
Democracy, or any other system of governance, can work only if there exists
a body which can take a dispassionate and independent view as if from "outside",
and then guide the society towards that vision. Salaried teachers
are clearly not placed in such a situation. Our ancient gurukul system
was entirely different. The guru lived independent of the state.
Our texts are replete with instances of kings visiting the ashrams of the
gurus to seek advice on a particular matter. But our teachers will
run to the ministers at the slightest opening!
Those among the professors
who are seekers after truth should realise, as Marx had said, the material
conditions determine the consciousness of people. They must, therefore,
give up salaried jobs and start living by some vocation independent of
the state. He who pays the piper calls the tune. If the piper
has to play his own tune, then he has to make his own living. It
is for this reason the Manu Smriti says that a good Brahmin is one who
has food for three years, better is one who has for three days, and the
best is one who does not know wherefrom his next meal is to come.
And it forbids a Brahmin to serve another. Thus, the Brahmin panwala
must control the minister who, in turn, has to control the professor.
If at all, the society should support the panwala in being autonomous,
not the universities.
