Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
No such thing as United Nations
I NEVER imagined I would one day agree with that bizarre neoconservative warmonger John Bolton, who was briefly the US ambassador to the United Nations. In 1994, Bolton was quoted as saying "There's no such thing as the United Nations. If the UN secretary building in New York lost 10 stories, it wouldn't make a bit of difference". I differ from Bolton only on one point. The entire expensive and useless organization founded in 1945 to prevent wars and pursue human rights should be demolished because it has failed to live up to its charter over and over again.
On Saturday night, the UN Security Council met in a closed-door emergency session so as to agree a resolution on Gaza, where more than 520 Palestinians have been murdered and over 3,000 wounded. But due to American pro-Israel bias, hypocrisy and double standards its members couldn't even come up with a joint statement calling for an immediate cease-fire.
For once, Britain broke with its joined-at-the-hip US ally and demanded an end to the aggression whereas only last week it, too, had blocked UN calls for a cease-fire. It seems that Britain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown has decided he is no longer willing to provide Washington with moral cover but unfortunately this is too little, too late.
Saturday's stalemate is a repeat of attempts in the summer of 2006 to end Israel's war on Gaza that robbed the lives of 1,200 civilians. Then, the US and Britain, both veto-holders, stood together against the rest of the world and allowed the carnage to go on until it looked like Israel was receiving an unexpected bloody nose.
The council's current inaction was too much for the president of the UN General Assembly Miguel d'Escoto Brockman, who termed it "a monstrosity". "Once again, the world is watching in dismay the dysfunction of the Security Council," he said, while blaming certain countries for playing politics.
Article 1 of the UN Charter headed "Purposes of the United Nations" calls for the body "to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: To take collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace; and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes..."
Article 73 states members of the UN which have responsibilities for the administration of territories whose people have not attained a full measure of self-government must recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount and must ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social and educational advancement, their just treatment and their protection against abuses".
The UN has failed on all the above points and more. It does not maintain international peace and security. It does not suppress acts of aggression or settle international disputes and it does not censure Israel's willful failure to hold the interests of the occupied Palestinians paramount and protect them against abuses.
The charter is further based on the sovereign equality of all its members. This fine sentiment has turned out to be a huge joke. There is no equality amongst members and there cannot be as long as the five permanent members of the Security Council have veto power - a power, by the way that cannot be withdrawn unless the five veto-holders agree.
In reality, the 192 member states are under the boot of the five veto-holders. This situation makes a mockery of the term United Nations. There are the five bosses and then there are the others.
To be precise, there are six bosses, one unofficial. Israel and the US are practically one when it comes to foreign policy and, thus, Israel receives carte blanche to produce undeclared nuclear weapons, carry out a policy of extrajudicial assassinations as well as bomb and invade neighboring countries at will. The US vetoes most resolutions critical of Israel and blocks all resolutions binding under Chapter 7.
No wonder Israel feels free to publicly confront the veracity of UN representatives who say there is a severe humanitarian crisis in Gaza and expel those it doesn't like such as UN Special Rapporteur Richard Falk, who says he was treated like some sort of security threat locked in "a tiny room that smelled of urine and filth". Falk received such appealing treatment all because he had spoken out against Israel's violations of international humanitarian law.
A fair and just world formed by the true will of all the international community requires a nonelitist body where all nations are empowered with a vote that counts. Moreover, such an organization should not be headquartered in the US where delegates are vulnerable to being browbeaten, threatened, bribed and monitored as occurred in the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Instead, a neutral home such as Switzerland or even Dubai should be considered.
In the meantime, Israel continues its bloodletting in Gaza unimpeded while the United Nations will continue to be nothing more than an empty debating society, to borrow an expression from George W. Bush. It needs either a shake-up or a demolition squad. As it stands it shames us all.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Nazi Israel... Indeed
- by Elias Akleh
(Saturday, December 27, 2008 04:51:42 pm)
"According to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (signed by Israel) children are to be afforded special protection during international armed conflicts. Israel had, and still is violating these international laws."
Richard Falk, the professor of international law at Princeton University and the UN’s special rapporteur on the Palestinian territories, had accused Israel of violating international law, international humanitarian laws, and the Geneva Convention. He described Israel’s policies against Palestinians and its siege of Gaza as "war crimes", "genocidal tendencies", "holocaust implications", and "holocaust-in-the-making". He urged the International Criminal Court to look into the possibility of indicting Israeli leaders for war crimes.
Professor Falk had a little taste of Israel’s Nazi-like crimes and human rights violation when he traveled to Israel, last Sunday December 14th, 2008, to visit the Occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip to report on Israel’s compliance with human rights standards and international humanitarian law. The Israelis "detained" Professor Falk at the airport, treated his as a criminal and a threat to the state, humiliated him and deported him next day back to Geneva.
Despite Israel’s strong declaration that every Jew in the world is automatically granted full Israeli citizenship with all the protections this entails, and despite being a Jew himself, Professor Falk was not spared the humiliations and cruelty Israel treats its enemies with.
Emboldened by the American blind and unconditional support, defiant Israel wanted to publicly give its finger to Falk and to the UN he represents, declaring itself above all international laws and above any criticism of its crimes and human rights violations even if such criticism comes from a Jew himself. Such defying humiliation of the world political body is meant to distract the UN, and thus the whole world, away from the holocaust it is perpetrating against the 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza, and all its on-going war crimes against the rest of Palestinians throughout the whole Palestine.
Falk’s accusations of Israel’s Nazi-like holocaustal implications are no different from those made by John Dugard, his predecessor, in several reports on conditions in occupied Palestine. Many conscientious political figures, as well as regular citizens, around the world had described Israel’s policies in occupied Palestine in specific and in the Middle East in general as war crimes and threat to world peace.
Comparing the present-day Israel with Nazi Germany one discovers that the majority of the Israeli policies are the exact copies of the Nazi policies. Nazi Germany had invaded its European neighbors extending from England to Russia. Israel had also invaded all its neighboring countries; Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. It is also heavily involved in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Its tentacles had also reached African countries as far as South Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Angola, and Sierra Leone.
Nazi war machines used to invade resisting towns, line up the men in the center of the town to be executed in cold blood, and destroyed the whole town as a deterring example for any possible other resisting towns. Worse than the Nazis Israeli forces used to invade peaceful Palestinian towns, execute men, women and children in cold blood everywhere and anywhere they encounter them, dynamite their homes on top of their residents, and finally demolish the whole town making room for new Israeli colonies. Throughout 1948/49 Israelis had committed 70 ugly massacres against Palestinian villagers, and totally destroyed 675 Palestinian towns and villages including their churches and mosques. Such massacres and demolitions followed a set pattern, repeated in one village after the other, indicating a pre-meditated genocidal plan.
In the words of the late Israeli General Moshe Dayan: "The declaration of the State of Israel in 1948 was at the expense of ethnically cleansing 513 Palestinian villages, creating over 700,000 Palestinian refugees and expropriating their lands, homes and businesses in 78% of Palestine … There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former (Palestinian) population."
Israel is, still up till today, carrying these same genocidal Nazi-like holocaustal crimes gradually choking 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza to death by starvation, thirst, lack of fuel and disease. Israeli army is in the process of demolishing 40 Palestinian villages in the Negev desert. Army bulldozers are daily destroying Palestinian homes in major Palestinian cities such as Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Hebron, Ramallah, and Nablus.
The Nazi army perpetrated many massacres against prisoners of war. They used to execute prisoners and dump them in graves the prisoners where ordered to dig for themselves. The Israeli army followed the same method of executing prisoners of war especially during 1956 and 1967 Israeli-Egyptian wars. This was reported in the Israeli Haaretz newspaper in June 27th 2000. The Egyptian Human Rights Organization Secretary-General, Muhammad Munib, submitted a report confirming that Israel had killed between 7,000 to 15,000 Egyptian prisoners of wars of 1956 and 1967. The report also identified the locations of 11 mass graves in Sinai and Israel in which thousands of Egyptian prisoners were buried.
The most prominent of these massacres was the El-Arish massacre, where Israeli forces murdered at least 150 Egyptian prisoners of war. Some of the prisoners were run over by Israeli tanks several times, a crime that is still practiced by Israeli army especially in the Gaza Strip. The story of the massacre was originally reported by Israeli eyewitnesses in Israel’s Yediot Ahronot newspaper, and later by Israeli journalist Ran Adelist on Israeli television. It was also reported by the Washington Report of May/June 1996 pages 27 and 28. The massacre was also recorded by the American USS Liberty surveillance ship that was sailing 12 miles off the shore of Gaza. This massacre was a serious war crime and could have been the main reason for the Israeli attack on the Liberty.
Worse than the Nazis the Israeli army had adopted the policy of targeting young Palestinian children in an attempt to "nudge" Palestinian families to leave the country for the sake of the future of the children, and/or to exhaust their financial resources in treating and caring for their disabled and crippled wounded children; the victims of Israeli snipers. Since the beginning of the second Palestinian Intifada, September 2000, Israeli forces have murdered 1050 children in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank; see also the Guardian, October 21, 2008, and Al-Jazeera, October 22, 2008. A Palestinian Centre for Human Rights report documented, with eyewitness testimonies, at least 68 children were murdered by Israeli army during 12 months from June 07 to June 07 just before the cease fire agreement. The child murder toll rose dramatically during the first six months of 2008 with the Israeli army massive assault of "Operation Winter Heat" against Gaza Strip. Children were directly targeted by Israeli snipers while walking in the streets, while standing in front of their homes, and even while sitting in their school rooms, also directly by drone missiles while playing in courts. They are also the indirect victims if Israeli deliberate targeting densely populated residential areas (Gaza is densely populated) including schools, hospitals and food markets.
The average age of the targeted children was ten years old according to a thousand-page document by Save the Children. The majority of these children were innocent bystanders not participating in any "hostile" activity or causing any threat to the heavily armed Israeli soldiers. In the 80% of the cases of targeted children, the Israeli army prevented the victim from receiving any medical attention. The report also documented that more than 50,000 child victims required medical attention for injuries including gunshot wounds, tear gas inhalation and multiple fractures. A bulletin titled "Deliberate Murder" published in 1989 by the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights reported the targeting of Palestinian children by Israeli army and snipers from "special unit" had "carefully chosen" the children, who were shot in the head or heart and died instantaneously (Mike Berry & Greg Philo, ‘Israel and Palestine-Competing Histories’, Pluto Press, London, 2006, pp. 86-87).
According to the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (signed by Israel) children are to be afforded special protection during international armed conflicts. Israel had, and still is violating these international laws.
Like Nazi Germany, who developed and used all kinds of new weapons including the V2 rocket bomb and nerve gas, Israel has used every kind of weapons, even new experimental ones, against Palestinian civilians. This included the Dumdum exploding bullets, nerve gas, experimental chemical and biological weapons, flying drones, and DIME (Dense Inert Metal Explosive) and the latest remote control high power machine guns (seer shoots) installed on the high towers of the imprisoning wall (separation wall) and operated by teen aged female soldiers in far away operating rooms like computerized war games. Israel is also know to be a nuclear power and is always hinting at using it if/when they feel threatened.
Nazi Germans were brainwashed and driven by a social supremacist ideology of the superior Aryan Race (Der Supermann). They believed that they were superior to the rest of the people and that they should rule the world. Similarly the Israelis are brainwashed and driven by the religious supremacist ideology of god’s chosen people in god’s promised land, and believe that it is their religious duty (mitzvah) to cleanse the world from all gentiles (non-Jews), and to establish a Jewish only world government in preparation for the coming of the Messiah. Such dangerous extreme ideology is taught to Israeli children since childhood.
Moshe Feiglin, who won a respectable position on the Likuds’ Knesset list for the upcoming Israeli election is an admirer of Hitler and his superior ideology. In an interview with the Ha’aretz Newspaper in 1995 he described Hitler as a military genius and a great nation builder. "Hitler was an unparallel military genius. Nazism had transformed Germany from a low to a fantastic physical and ideological status. The ragged, trashy youth body turned into a neat and orderly part of society and Germany received an exemplary regime, a proper justice system, and public order. … This was no bunch of thugs. They merely used thugs and homosexuals". His holocaustal solution to the Palestinian problem, according to his Manhigut ha’Yehudit (Jewish leadership) website, is to order "the complete stoppage of water, electricity and communication" to the four million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
Feiglin expresses the inner sentiment of every Israeli political leader starting from their first Prime Minister Ben Gurion up to Tzipi Livni, the latest acting Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affair, who have been calling for the murder and the transfer of Palestinians out of the god’s promised land of Israel (Erez Israel). Their real policies become obvious and louder in their campaign rhetoric.
Such genocidal holocaustal tendencies are nurtured, encouraged and called for by top Israeli Rabbis and political leaders. Rabbi Yousef Obadia, the top Israeli religious leader, Rabbi Yisrael Rosen, director of the Tsomet Institute, Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, the leading religious authority in Israel’s religious national current and former chief Eastern rabbi for Israel, Rabbi Dov Lior, president of the Council of Rabbis of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), Rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu, the chief rabbi of Safed and a candidate for the post of chief rabbi or Israel, Rabbi Eliyahu Kinvinsky, the second most senior authority in the Orthodox religious current, Rabbi Israel Ariel, one of the most prominent rabbis in the West Bank colonies, and Rabbi Yitzhaq Ginsburg, a top rabbi in Israel among many other extremist religious Israeli leaders are continually calling for total extermination and transfer of Palestinians.
Brainwashed and misguided Israelis, especially religious fundamentalists, regularly attack Palestinian towns, vandalize their churches, mosques and cemeteries with graffiti slogans such as "Death to Arabs", "Gas the Arabs", and "Mohammad is a pig", occupying Palestinian after forcefully evicting their Palestinian owners, attacking farmers, burning their crops, cutting their fruit trees, poisoning their water wells, killing their farm animals, destroying properties, looting shops, terrorizing civilians and children and shooting people. Searching youtube.com for "Israeli settlers violence" to watch the hundreds of videos showing Israeli settlers terrorism.
One prominent similarity between Israel and the Nazis is their state sponsored terror groups. According to articles "Eichmann Tells His Own Damning Story", Life Magazine, Volume 49, Number 22, (November 28th 1960) pp. 19-25, 101-112, and "Eichmann’s Own Story: Part II", Life Magazine, December 6th 1960 pp. 146-161, Adolf Eichmann stated how Zionist leaders were idealist like Nazi leaders, willing to sacrifice hundred thousands of their own blood to achieve political goal. Lenni Brenner explains in his book "Zionism in the Age of Dictators", in chapter 25, that Eichmann was referring here to a deal the Nazi struck with Zionist leaders, such as Hungarian Rezso Kastner, to save a few thousand hand-picked Zionists and wealthy Jews, who would immigrate to Palestine, in return for leading 750,000 Hungarian Jews, and other millions of European Jews to their death to make Jews "rightful victim", so that World Zionist Organization would have the "right" to come " before the bargaining table when they divide nations and lands at the war’s end … for only with (Jewish) blood shall we (Zionists) get the land."
The Nazis set up Police Battalion 101, a terrorist group, whose sole purpose was hunting Jewish citizens, killing them and looting and destroying their property. Daniel Jonah Goldhagen states in his book "Hitler’s Willing Executioners" that Battalion 101 was responsible for "the deportation and gruesome slaughter in Poland of tens of thousands of Jewish men, women, and children".
Israel had its own exact copy of Battalion 101 called Unit 101 under the terrorist Ariel Sharon, who later became Israel’s Prime Minister. Under Sharon’s leadership Unit 101 adopted the same criminal methods to terrorize Palestinians. It also implemented what became known as jeep raids; driving jeeps, with machine guns mounted on the front and rear, into Palestinian towns murdering inhabitants, dynamiting homes, and burning their fields. Since early 1950s Unit 101 was responsible for massacres in Palestinian towns such as Bureij refugee camp, Qibya, Idna, Surif, Wadi Fukin, Falameh, Rantis, Jerusalem, Budrus, Dawayima, Beit Liqya, Khan Younis and Gaza.
Israel had always resorted to terrorist attacks against Jews in other countries especially Arab countries, such as North African Arab countries, Iraq, Lebanon, and Jordan, to encourage Jewish Arab residents to immigrate to Israel. The Lavon Affair is just one famous terrorist related incident in Egypt.
In January 29th 1999 article in Israeli Ha’aretz paper, Gideon Spiro, a former member of the 890 battalion, stated that Unit 101 was an early, more primitive prototype for the more sophisticated liquidation units of Duvdevan and Shimshon established during the Intifada" Its operations were characterized by "lots of killing of civilians and little real combat".
Israel is the only county in the world with many Prime Ministers, who were members of terrorist and state-sponsored terrorist organizations directly involved in slaughter of civilians. These include Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, and Shimon Peres.
Arnold Toynbee wrote "It was a supreme tragedy that the lesson learnt by them (the Jews) from their encounter with the Nazi German Gentiles should have been, not to eschew but to imitate some of the evil deeds that the Nazis had committed against the Jews."
Israelis and Jews of the world have relentlessly pursued Nazi war criminals for decades for their war crimes committed during WWII. They chased Nazi war criminals for the rest of their lives, even when they were old and close to their death, to make them pay for their crimes. No doubts in my mind that Israeli war criminals, in turn, will be pursued and sentenced for their war crimes committed against Arabs.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Buddhism’s Disappearance from India
- Vinay Lal
One of the supreme ironies of the history of Buddhism in India is the question of how Buddhism came to disappear from the land of its birth. Many scholars of Buddhism, Hinduism, Indian history, and of religion more generally have been devoted to unraveling this puzzle. There is no absolute consensus on this matter, and a few scholars have even contended that Buddhism never disappeared as such from India. On this view, Buddhism simply changed form, or was absorbed into Hindu practices. Such an argument is, in fact, a variation of the view, which perhaps has more adherents than any other, that Buddhism disappeared, not on account of persecution by Hindus, but because of the ascendancy of reformed Hinduism. However, the view that Buddhists were persecuted by Brahmins, who were keen to assert their caste supremacy, still has some adherents, and in recent years has been championed not only by some Dalit writers and their sympathizers but by at least a handful of scholars of pre-modern Indian history. [1]
What is not disputed is the gradual decline of Buddhism in India, as the testimony of the Chinese traveler, Hsuan Tsang, amply demonstrates. Though Buddhism had been the dominant religion in much of the Gangetic plains in the early part of the Christian era, Hsuan Tsang, traveling in India in the early years of the 7th century, witnessed something quite different. In Prayag, or Allahabad as it is known to many, Hsuan Tsang encountered mainly heretics, or non-Buddhists, but that is not surprising given the importance of Prayag as a pilgrimage site for Brahmins. But, even in Sravasti, the capital city of the Lichhavis, a north Indian clan that came to power around 200 AD, established their capital in Pasupathinath, and in a long and glorious period of reign extending through the early part of the ninth century endowed a large number of both Hindu and Buddhist monuments and monasteries, Hsuan Tsang witnessed a much greater number of “Hindus” (ie, non-Buddhists, such as Jains and Saivites) than Buddhists. Kusinagar, the small village some 52 kilometres from Gorakhpur where the Buddha had gone into mahaparinirvana, was in a rather dilapidated state and Hsuan Tsang found few Buddhists. In Varanasi, to be sure, Hsuan Tsang found some 3000 Bhikkus or Buddhist monks, but they were outshadowed by more than 10,000 non-Buddhists. There is scarcely any question that Hsuan Tsang arrived in India at a time when Buddhism was entering into a state of precipitous decline, and by the 13th century Buddhism, as a formal religion, had altogether disappeared from India. [2] But even as Buddhism went into decline, it is remarkable that the great seat of Buddhist learning, Nalanda, continued to flourish, retaining its importance until the Muslim invasions of the second millennium. Moreover, it is from Nalanda that Padmasambhava carried Buddhism to Tibet in the eighth century. Consequently, even the story of Buddhism in India cannot be unequivocally written in a single register of decline.
To consider the question somewhat more systematically, we might wish to consider in serial order the various reasons advanced for Buddhism’s decline and disappearance from India. The various arguments can be grouped under the following headings: sectarian and internal histories, focusing on schisms within the Buddhist faith, the widening differences between the clergy, Bhikkus, and laity, and the growing corruption within the sangha; histories focused on Buddhism’s relations with Brahmanism, dwelling on the alleged persecution of Buddhists by Brahmins, the defeat of the Buddhists by the great theologian Shankara in public debates, as well as on the supposedly characteristic tendency of Hinduism, or rather Brahmanism, to absorb its opponents; and, finally, secular and political histories, which emphasize the withdrawal of royal patronage from Buddhism and, later, the Muslim invasions which had the effect of driving into extinction an already debilitated faith.
Turning our attention to what I have described as sectarian histories, it is generally conceded that the Buddhist clergy paid insufficient attention to its laity. Buddhist mendicants kept their distance from non-mendicants, and as scholars of Buddhism have noted, no manual for the conduct of the laity was produced until the 11th century. Non-mendicants may not have felt particularly invested in their religion, and as the venues where the mendicants and non-mendicants intersected gradually disappeared, the laity might have felt distanced from the faith. The contrast, in this respect, with Jainism is marked. Some scholars have also emphasized the narrative of decay and corruption within a faith where the monks had come to embrace a rather easy-going and even indolent lifestyle, quite mindless of the Buddha’s insistence on aparigraha, or non-possession. The Buddhist monasteries are sometimes described as repositories of great wealth.
The secular and political histories adopt rather different arguments. It has been argued that royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions. Under the Kushanas, indeed even under the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage, but as Brahmanism veered off, so to speak, into Vaishnavism and Saivism, and regional kingdoms developed into the major sites of power, Buddhism began to suffer a decline. The itinerant Buddhist monk, if one may put it this way, gave way to forms of life less more conducive to settled agriculture. The Palas of Bengal, though they had been hospitable to Vaishnavism and Saivism, were nonetheless major supporters of Buddhism. However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223), Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was pushed out -- towards Tibet.
Though Buddhism had already entered into something of a decline by the time of Hsuan Tsang’s visit to India during the reign of Harsha of Kanauj in the early seventh century, it has also been argued that its further demise, particularly in the early part of the second millennium AD, was hastened by the arrival of Islam. On this view, Buddhism found competition in Islam for converts among low-caste Hindus. Even Ambedkar, whose animosity towards Hinduism is palpable, was nonetheless firmly of the view that Islam dealt Buddhism a death blow. As he was to put it, “brahmanism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders could look to the rulers for support and sustenance and get it. Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders had no such hope. It was uncared for orphan and it withered in the cold blast of the native rulers and was consumed in the fire lit up by the conquerors.” Ambedkar was quite certain that this was “the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India.” We thus find Ambekdar embracing the “sword of Islam thesis”: “The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained alive to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.” [3] There are, of course, many problems with this view. The “sword of Islam” thesis remains controversial, at best, and many reputable historians are inclined to dismiss it outright. Islam was, moreover, a late entrant into India, and Buddhism was showing unmistakable signs of its decline long before Islam became established in the Gangetic plains, central India, and the northern end of present-day Andhra and Karnataka.
Many narrative accounts of Buddhism’s decline and eventual disappearance from the land of its faith have been focused on Buddhism’s relations with Hinduism or Brahmanism. Nearly 20 years ago the historian S. R. Goyal wrote that "according to
many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India." The Saivite king, Shashanka, invariably appears in such histories as a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists, though the single original source for all subsequent narratives about Shashanka’s ruinous conduct towards Buddhists remains Hsuan Tsang. Shashanka is reported to have destroyed the Bodhi tree and ordered the destruction of Buddhist images. Hindu nationalists appear to think that many Muslim monuments were once Hindu temples, but partisans of Buddhism are inclined to the view that Hindu temples were often built on the site of Buddhist shrines.
If some scholars focus on outright persecution, others speak of a long process during which Buddhist practices became absorbed into Hinduism. The doctrine of ahimsa may have originated with the Buddha, and certainly found its greatest exposition in the Buddha’s teachings, but by the second half of the 1st millennium AD it had become part of Hindu teachings. The great Brahmin philosopher, Shankaracharya (c. 788-820 AD), is said to have engaged the Buddhists in public debates and each time he emerged triumphant. Monastic practices had once been unknown in Brahminism, but over time this changed. Shankaracharya himself established maths or monasteries at Badrinath in the north, Dwarka in the west, Sringeri in the south, and Puri in the east. The Buddha had, as is commonly noticed, been transformed into an avatara (descent) of Vishnu. The tendency of Hinduism to absorb rival faiths has been commented upon by many, though one could speak equally of the elements from other faiths that have gone into the making of Hinduism. Was Buddha absorbed into the Hindu pantheon so that Buddhism might become defanged, or is it the case that Buddhism stood for certain values that Hinduism was eager to embrace as its own?
Though many Dalit and other anti-Brahminical writers would like to represent Brahminism as a tyrannical faith that wrought massive destruction upon the Buddhists [see www.dalistan.org], the matter is more complicated. A recent study of the Bengal Puranas indubitably shows that the Buddhists were mocked, cast as mischievous and malicious in Brahminical narratives, and subjected to immense rhetorical violence. But rhetorical violence is not necessarily to be read as physical violence perpetrated upon the Buddhists, any more than accounts of thousands of Hindu temples destroyed at the hands of Muslim invaders are to be read literally. Similarly, the absorption of the Buddha into Vishnu’s pantheon may have represented something of a compromise between the Brahmins and Buddhists: since so much of what Buddhism stood for had been incorporated into certain strands of Brahminism, the Buddha was at least to be given his just dues. This anxiety of absorption continues down to the present day, and one of the more curious expressions of this anxiety must surely be a letter from the All India Bhikkhu Sangha to the-then Prime Minister of India, P. V. Narasimha Rao. In his letter of 23 February 1995, the President of the Sangha complained that the actor Arun Govil, who had played Rama in the TV serial Ramayana, had been chosen to play the Buddha in the TV serial by the same name. Could anyone really play the Buddha? “As you know,” the letter reminds Rao, “the Buddha was never a mythological figure as Rama & Hanuman but very much a historical figure.” [5] If nothing else, we might at least read the disappearance of Buddhism from India as a parable about how myth always outlives history.
One of the supreme ironies of the history of Buddhism in India is the question of how Buddhism came to disappear from the land of its birth. Many scholars of Buddhism, Hinduism, Indian history, and of religion more generally have been devoted to unraveling this puzzle. There is no absolute consensus on this matter, and a few scholars have even contended that Buddhism never disappeared as such from India. On this view, Buddhism simply changed form, or was absorbed into Hindu practices. Such an argument is, in fact, a variation of the view, which perhaps has more adherents than any other, that Buddhism disappeared, not on account of persecution by Hindus, but because of the ascendancy of reformed Hinduism. However, the view that Buddhists were persecuted by Brahmins, who were keen to assert their caste supremacy, still has some adherents, and in recent years has been championed not only by some Dalit writers and their sympathizers but by at least a handful of scholars of pre-modern Indian history. [1]
What is not disputed is the gradual decline of Buddhism in India, as the testimony of the Chinese traveler, Hsuan Tsang, amply demonstrates. Though Buddhism had been the dominant religion in much of the Gangetic plains in the early part of the Christian era, Hsuan Tsang, traveling in India in the early years of the 7th century, witnessed something quite different. In Prayag, or Allahabad as it is known to many, Hsuan Tsang encountered mainly heretics, or non-Buddhists, but that is not surprising given the importance of Prayag as a pilgrimage site for Brahmins. But, even in Sravasti, the capital city of the Lichhavis, a north Indian clan that came to power around 200 AD, established their capital in Pasupathinath, and in a long and glorious period of reign extending through the early part of the ninth century endowed a large number of both Hindu and Buddhist monuments and monasteries, Hsuan Tsang witnessed a much greater number of “Hindus” (ie, non-Buddhists, such as Jains and Saivites) than Buddhists. Kusinagar, the small village some 52 kilometres from Gorakhpur where the Buddha had gone into mahaparinirvana, was in a rather dilapidated state and Hsuan Tsang found few Buddhists. In Varanasi, to be sure, Hsuan Tsang found some 3000 Bhikkus or Buddhist monks, but they were outshadowed by more than 10,000 non-Buddhists. There is scarcely any question that Hsuan Tsang arrived in India at a time when Buddhism was entering into a state of precipitous decline, and by the 13th century Buddhism, as a formal religion, had altogether disappeared from India. [2] But even as Buddhism went into decline, it is remarkable that the great seat of Buddhist learning, Nalanda, continued to flourish, retaining its importance until the Muslim invasions of the second millennium. Moreover, it is from Nalanda that Padmasambhava carried Buddhism to Tibet in the eighth century. Consequently, even the story of Buddhism in India cannot be unequivocally written in a single register of decline.
To consider the question somewhat more systematically, we might wish to consider in serial order the various reasons advanced for Buddhism’s decline and disappearance from India. The various arguments can be grouped under the following headings: sectarian and internal histories, focusing on schisms within the Buddhist faith, the widening differences between the clergy, Bhikkus, and laity, and the growing corruption within the sangha; histories focused on Buddhism’s relations with Brahmanism, dwelling on the alleged persecution of Buddhists by Brahmins, the defeat of the Buddhists by the great theologian Shankara in public debates, as well as on the supposedly characteristic tendency of Hinduism, or rather Brahmanism, to absorb its opponents; and, finally, secular and political histories, which emphasize the withdrawal of royal patronage from Buddhism and, later, the Muslim invasions which had the effect of driving into extinction an already debilitated faith.
Turning our attention to what I have described as sectarian histories, it is generally conceded that the Buddhist clergy paid insufficient attention to its laity. Buddhist mendicants kept their distance from non-mendicants, and as scholars of Buddhism have noted, no manual for the conduct of the laity was produced until the 11th century. Non-mendicants may not have felt particularly invested in their religion, and as the venues where the mendicants and non-mendicants intersected gradually disappeared, the laity might have felt distanced from the faith. The contrast, in this respect, with Jainism is marked. Some scholars have also emphasized the narrative of decay and corruption within a faith where the monks had come to embrace a rather easy-going and even indolent lifestyle, quite mindless of the Buddha’s insistence on aparigraha, or non-possession. The Buddhist monasteries are sometimes described as repositories of great wealth.
The secular and political histories adopt rather different arguments. It has been argued that royal patronage shifted from Buddhist to Hindu religious institutions. Under the Kushanas, indeed even under the Guptas (325-497 AD), both Buddhists and adherents of Brahmanism received royal patronage, but as Brahmanism veered off, so to speak, into Vaishnavism and Saivism, and regional kingdoms developed into the major sites of power, Buddhism began to suffer a decline. The itinerant Buddhist monk, if one may put it this way, gave way to forms of life less more conducive to settled agriculture. The Palas of Bengal, though they had been hospitable to Vaishnavism and Saivism, were nonetheless major supporters of Buddhism. However, when Bengal came under the rule of the Senas (1097-1223), Saivism was promulgated and Buddhism was pushed out -- towards Tibet.
Though Buddhism had already entered into something of a decline by the time of Hsuan Tsang’s visit to India during the reign of Harsha of Kanauj in the early seventh century, it has also been argued that its further demise, particularly in the early part of the second millennium AD, was hastened by the arrival of Islam. On this view, Buddhism found competition in Islam for converts among low-caste Hindus. Even Ambedkar, whose animosity towards Hinduism is palpable, was nonetheless firmly of the view that Islam dealt Buddhism a death blow. As he was to put it, “brahmanism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders could look to the rulers for support and sustenance and get it. Buddhism beaten and battered by the Muslim invaders had no such hope. It was uncared for orphan and it withered in the cold blast of the native rulers and was consumed in the fire lit up by the conquerors.” Ambedkar was quite certain that this was “the greatest disaster that befell the religion of Buddha in India.” We thus find Ambekdar embracing the “sword of Islam thesis”: “The sword of Islam fell heavily upon the priestly class. It perished or it fled outside India. Nobody remained alive to keep the flame of Buddhism burning.” [3] There are, of course, many problems with this view. The “sword of Islam” thesis remains controversial, at best, and many reputable historians are inclined to dismiss it outright. Islam was, moreover, a late entrant into India, and Buddhism was showing unmistakable signs of its decline long before Islam became established in the Gangetic plains, central India, and the northern end of present-day Andhra and Karnataka.
Many narrative accounts of Buddhism’s decline and eventual disappearance from the land of its faith have been focused on Buddhism’s relations with Hinduism or Brahmanism. Nearly 20 years ago the historian S. R. Goyal wrote that "according to
many scholars hostility of the Brahmanas was one of the major causes of the decline of Buddhism in India." The Saivite king, Shashanka, invariably appears in such histories as a ferocious oppressor of the Buddhists, though the single original source for all subsequent narratives about Shashanka’s ruinous conduct towards Buddhists remains Hsuan Tsang. Shashanka is reported to have destroyed the Bodhi tree and ordered the destruction of Buddhist images. Hindu nationalists appear to think that many Muslim monuments were once Hindu temples, but partisans of Buddhism are inclined to the view that Hindu temples were often built on the site of Buddhist shrines.
If some scholars focus on outright persecution, others speak of a long process during which Buddhist practices became absorbed into Hinduism. The doctrine of ahimsa may have originated with the Buddha, and certainly found its greatest exposition in the Buddha’s teachings, but by the second half of the 1st millennium AD it had become part of Hindu teachings. The great Brahmin philosopher, Shankaracharya (c. 788-820 AD), is said to have engaged the Buddhists in public debates and each time he emerged triumphant. Monastic practices had once been unknown in Brahminism, but over time this changed. Shankaracharya himself established maths or monasteries at Badrinath in the north, Dwarka in the west, Sringeri in the south, and Puri in the east. The Buddha had, as is commonly noticed, been transformed into an avatara (descent) of Vishnu. The tendency of Hinduism to absorb rival faiths has been commented upon by many, though one could speak equally of the elements from other faiths that have gone into the making of Hinduism. Was Buddha absorbed into the Hindu pantheon so that Buddhism might become defanged, or is it the case that Buddhism stood for certain values that Hinduism was eager to embrace as its own?
Though many Dalit and other anti-Brahminical writers would like to represent Brahminism as a tyrannical faith that wrought massive destruction upon the Buddhists [see www.dalistan.org], the matter is more complicated. A recent study of the Bengal Puranas indubitably shows that the Buddhists were mocked, cast as mischievous and malicious in Brahminical narratives, and subjected to immense rhetorical violence. But rhetorical violence is not necessarily to be read as physical violence perpetrated upon the Buddhists, any more than accounts of thousands of Hindu temples destroyed at the hands of Muslim invaders are to be read literally. Similarly, the absorption of the Buddha into Vishnu’s pantheon may have represented something of a compromise between the Brahmins and Buddhists: since so much of what Buddhism stood for had been incorporated into certain strands of Brahminism, the Buddha was at least to be given his just dues. This anxiety of absorption continues down to the present day, and one of the more curious expressions of this anxiety must surely be a letter from the All India Bhikkhu Sangha to the-then Prime Minister of India, P. V. Narasimha Rao. In his letter of 23 February 1995, the President of the Sangha complained that the actor Arun Govil, who had played Rama in the TV serial Ramayana, had been chosen to play the Buddha in the TV serial by the same name. Could anyone really play the Buddha? “As you know,” the letter reminds Rao, “the Buddha was never a mythological figure as Rama & Hanuman but very much a historical figure.” [5] If nothing else, we might at least read the disappearance of Buddhism from India as a parable about how myth always outlives history.
Notes:
1. See, for example, D. C. Ahir, Buddhism Declined in
2. For Hsuan Tsang’s travel narrative, see the translation by Samuel Beal, Si-Yu Ki: Buddhist Records of the Western World (London: Trubner & Co., 1884; reprint ed., Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Corporation).
Hinduism and Talibanism
By Mukundan C. Menon
Which is more deplorable: destruction of Buddhism in its own birth place in ancient India by Hindus, or of Buddha statues by present day Islamic Talibans in Afghanistan?
Two well known academicians of Kerala - Prof KM Bahauddin, former pro-vice chancellor of Aligarh Muslim and Osmania universities, and Dr MS Jayaprakash, professor of history at Kollam - throw some deep insights into the dark history of India when Buddhism was systematically eliminated by Brahminical forces who control Hinduism, then and now.
Says Jayaprakash: ‘The ruthless demolition of Buddha statues by Taliban has courted severe criticism from different quarters of the world. Surprisingly, the BJP-led Indian Government, supported by all Hindutva forces, also condemned the Taliban action. It is a paradox that the forerunners of the present Hindutva forces in India had wantonly destroyed not only Buddhist statues but also killed Buddhists in India. Therefore, any impartial student of history would unequivocally say that these Hindutva forces have no moral right to criticize Taliban now.’
He elaborates: ‘Hundreds of Buddhist statues, stupas and viharas have been destroyed in India between 830 and 966 AD in the name of Hindu revivalism. Both literary and archaeological sources within and outside India speak volumes about the havoc done to Buddhism by Hindu fanatics. Spiritual leaders like Sankaracharya and many Hindu kings and rulers took pride in demolishing Buddhist images aiming at the total eradication of Buddhist culture. Today, their descendants destroyed the Babri Masjid and also published the list of mosques to be targeted in future. It is with this sin of pride that they presently condemn Taliban.’
Prof. Bahauddin elaborates the selfish compulsions of Brahminism to wipe-out Buddhism: ‘Buddhism tried to create a dynamic society in ancient India. Jainism also contributed its share. As Buddhism spread, iron ploughs and implement were used for development of agriculture. As a result, new areas were cultivated and agricultural productivity increased, apart from developing trade centres and road links. Subsistence-level economy changed to a surplus economy with grain storage facilities, exchange of goods, trade and development of bureaucratic administration. This also created social change - from elans consisting several families to tribes consisting several elans of similar socio-economic conditions. The emphasis of Brahmins, on the other hand, was for receiving and giving alms and not on production of goods. Those who give and receive alms were close to Gods and those who produce were considered as inferior. According to Manusmriti, a Sudra should not have wealth of his own. In case he has any, a Brahmin as his master can take it over without any hesitation. ‘Rigveda’ goes a step further to kill those who do not give ‘danam’ to the Brahmins. In other words, someone has to produce goods so that others can give ‘danam’ to the recipient Brahmins. It was against this system of 'downgrading those who produce' that Buddhism came into being.’
Recalls Dr. Jayaprakash: ‘The Hindu ruler Pushyamitra Sunga had destroyed 84,000 Buddhist stupas which were built by Emperor Ashoka. This was followed by the demolition of Buddhist centres in Magadha. Thousands of Buddhist saints were killed mercilessly. King Jalaluka destroyed the Buddha viharas within his jurisdiction on the ground that chanting of hymns by Buddhists disturbed his sleep! In Kashmir, King Kinnara demolished thousands of viharas and captured the Buddhist villages to please Brahmins. A large number of Buddha viharas were usurped by Brahmins and converted into Hindu temples where entry of ‘untouchables’ was prohibited. Notably, Buddhist places were regularized as Hindu temples by writing Puranas, which were invented myths or pseudo history. The important temples at Tirupathi, Aihole, Undavalli, Ellora, Bengal, Puri, Badarinath, Mathura, Ayodhya, Sringeri, Bodhigaya, Saranath, Delhi, Nalanda, Gudimallam, Nagarjunakonda, Srisailam and Sabarimala are some of the striking examples of Brahminical usurpation of Buddhist centres.’
Detailing the divergence in both orientation and essence between Buddhism and Hinduism, Prof. Bahauddin says: ‘Equality, compassion, non-violence, utilization of human abilities for general welfare, etc. were the cardinal principles of Buddhism. According to ‘Sathpatha Brahmanam (22-6, 3-4-14), on the other hand, the whole universe is controlled by God, God is controlled by Mantram and Mantram is with Brahmins and, therefore, Brahmins are God (on earth). They used Mantram and Sapam to instil fear in the people to obey them, while Buddhism encouraged people to observe visible facts, to apply reason to get out of fear. Buddhism also encouraged people to do good things, besides guiding Kings to look after the people's welfare. Buddhism considers the general welfare of the people, while Brahminism considers that the whole world was created for them all along. And, there is bound to be conflict between these two opposite ways of thinking.’
According to Dr Jayaprakash, Sakaracharya had played ‘a demon's role’ in destruction of Buddhist statues and monuments at Nagarjunakonda (in present-day Andhra Pradesh). ‘A. N. Longhurst, who conducted excavations at Nagarjunakonda, had recorded this in his invaluable book, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 54, The Buddhist Antiquities of Nagarjunakonda (Delhi, 1938, p. 6). The ruthless manner in which all the buildings at Nagarjunakonda have been destroyed is simply appalling and cannot represent the work of treasure-seekers alone since so many pillars, statues, and sculptures have been wantonly smashed to pieces. Local tradition relates that the great Hindu philosopher and teacher, Sankaracharya, came to Nagarjunakonda with a host of followers and destroyed the Buddhist monuments. The cultivated lands on which ruined buildings stand represent a religious grant made to Sankaracharya.’
Quoting Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Prof. Bahauddin says that the conflict against Brahmin supremacy had, in fact, started before Buddhist period, between Vasishta Muni, a Brahmin, and Viswamitra, a non-Brahmin. ‘The dispute was about the learning of ‘Vedas’, the right to conduct religious ceremony, to receive gifts, and to perform coronation of King. Vasishta Muni insisted that these were the exclusive privileges of Brahmins, while Viswamitra was opposed to such exclusive rights. This dispute lasted for long period, and even Kings joined in it (Writings and Speeches of Dr. Ambedkar, vol. 7, p. 148-155. It was won by Brahmins.’
Prof. Bahauddin lists the different stages of Brahmin hostility against Buddhism: ‘1) 483-273 BC: The period after Buddha's death upto Ashoka's rule when attempts were made to include Brahminical ideas in Buddhist ideology. 2) 273-200 BC: When Buddhism spread all over India and became a world religion. 3) 200 BC-500 AD: The period when all possible efforts were made to disintegrate Buddhism from within by adulterating Buddhist teachings with Brahminical ideas and also through physical annihilation from outside. As a result, Buddhism divided itself into 18 sects, of which Hinayana and Mahayana were prominent ones. 4) 500-700 AD: Brahminism gained supremacy in North India and efforts began to drive out Buddhism and Jainism from South India. 5) 700-1100 AD: Brahminism gained supremacy in South India and, with added vigour, it moved again to North India to obtain complete supremacy over Buddhism and Jainism. 6) 1100-1400 AD: Buddhism and Jainism were destroyed from the remaining Southern States of Karnataka and Kerala and, thus, total supremacy of Brahminism all over India was achieved.’
Adds Dr. Jayaprakash: ‘Within Kerala, Sankaracharya and his close associate Kumarila Bhatta, an avowed foe of Buddhism, organized a religious crusade against Buddhists. A vivid description of Sankaracharya's pleasure of seeing people of non-Brahminic faith being burnt to death is available in ‘Sankara Digvijaya’. Kumarila instigated King Suddhanvan of Ujjain to exterminate Buddhists. The ‘Mricchakatika’ of Sudraka describes how the King's brother-in-law in Ujjain inhumanly tortured the Buddhist monks, by using them as bullocks by inserting a string through their nose and yoking them to the cart! The ‘Keralolpathi’ documents the extermination of Buddhism from Kerala by Kumarila. About the activities of Sankaracharya, even Vivekananda had observed: ‘And, such was the heart of Sankara that he burnt to death lots of Buddhist monks by defeating them in argument. What can you call such action on Sankara's part except fanaticism’ (Complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. III, p. 118, Calcutta, 1997).’
According to Dr. Jayaprakash, there are hundreds of places in Kerala having names ‘palli’ either affixed or suffixed with them. ‘Karunagapalli, Karthikapalli, Pallickal, Pallippuram, Edappally, etc. are some examples of these places. The term ‘palli’ means a Buddha vihara. Notably, Kerala had 1200 years of Buddhist tradition. Earlier, the schools in Malayalam were called as ‘Ezhuthupalli’ or ‘Pallikoodam’. It is also worth noticing that the Christians and Muslims in Kerala use the term ‘palli’ to denote their church and mosque alike. These ‘pallies’ or viharas had been ruthlessly demolished by the Hindu forces under the leadership of Sankaracharya and Kumarila. They could exterminate 1200 years of Buddhist tradition and converted Kerala into a Brahminical state based on the ‘Chaturvarna’ system. Original inhabitants of Kerala, like the Ezhavas, Pulayas, etc., were crushed under the weight of casteism. Many a viharas was transformed into temples and majority of people were prevented from entering temples under the pretext of caste pollution. It can also be noted that the name ‘Kerala’ is the Sanskritised Aryan version of the Dravidian and Buddhist term ‘Cherala’. The Parasurama legend is nothing but an invented myth for regularizing the Brahminical ‘Kerala’ hiding its glorious Buddhist traditions.’
Jainism, too, met with the same fate in South India. Prof. Bahauddin elaborates: ‘Very little information is available about growth of Jainism in South India during 300-400 AD. The Jain book, ‘Digambara Darsana’, recounts the starting of a Sangham at Madurai in 470 AD and Jainism became widespread and strong during 500-600 AD (Kumaraswamy Iyengar, ‘Studies in South Indian Jainism’, p. 51-58)….. The Jains used to instal the images of their saints in their religious places, a practice which was followed by Brahmins. Hindu temples appeared all over Tamilnadu probably after converting the Jain religious places. The idols of 63 Brahmin Sanyasis, who led destruction of Jainism, still adorn the walls of some Hindu temples in Tamilnadu. The remains of destroyed Jain idols, their abandoned religious and living places are scattered all over Tamilnadu to narrate their story. Frescos depicting the kings of Jains could be seen on the walls near the Golden Tank at Madurai Meenakshi Temple where, of the total 12 annual festivals, five depict the killing of Jains according to Kumaraswamy Iyengar (p. 78-79).’
According to Dr. Jayaprakash, a number of Buddha statues have been discovered at places like Ambalapuzha, Karunagapalli, Pallickal, Bharanikkavu, Mavelikara and Neelamperur in Kerala. ‘They are either in the form of smashed pieces or thrown away from viharas. Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala and Lord Padmanabha at Thiruvananthapuram are the proxy images of Buddha being worshipped as Vishnu. Hundreds of Buddhists were killed on the banks of Aluva river. The term ‘Aluva’ was derived from ‘Alawai’ which means ‘Trisul’, a weapon used by Hindu fanatics to stab Buddhists. Similarly, on the banks of the Vaigai river in Tamilnadu, thousands of Buddhists were killed by the Vaishnava Saint, Sambanthar. Thevaram, a Tamil book, documents this brutal extermination of Buddhism.’
Prof. Bahauddin recalls the strong reasons to believe that a large section of Jains had embraced Islam: ‘The spread of Islam in Tamilnadu can be considered in three or four stages. Islam spread in Kerala and Tamilnadu when Jainism was under pressure (650-750 AD). The new religion was received without resistance…. Since Islam considers every human being with equality Jainism and Buddhism had no conflict with it. When Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim attacked Sindh, the Buddhists supported him because they were facing annihilation at that time. A similar situation was prevailing in South India during 650-750 AD…. Muslims in Tamilnadu are called Anchuvanthar, Labba (teacher), Rauthar, Marakar (sailor) or Jonakan (Yavankan). The Anchuvanam is the guild of traders and groups of artisans. The Muslim mohallas of ‘Anchuvan Vamsagar’, ‘Anchuvanathar’, etc. are scattered all over Tamilnadu and seem to be the en bloc conversion of Jain guilds engaged in different activities, especially weaving. Those who ran away from Tamilnadu settled down in Sravanabalagola and Gomatheswaram in Karnataka. And, those who could not leave due to their economic interests converted to Islam. If we analyze the body structure, food, language, dress, ornaments, customs and habits of Anchuvanthar, it could be see that those are a continuation of Jain way of living and customs.
Till recently, the weavers in such Muslim mohallas will not eat at noon or night, and take only one meal before dusk. This was a continuation of Jain habits. There is a separate place in such villages called ‘Odukkam’ where Jain Munist used to sit in prayer. On the last Wednesday of the month called ‘Odukkathae’ Wednesday, the Muslims gather together to sing religious songs, which is also a Jain tradition. When religious functions like Maulood, Rathif, etc. are organized in the house, a white cloth with lotus symbol on it called ‘Mekett’ is tied, which resembles the ‘Asmanagiri’ of the Jains…. The architecture of Muslim stone mosques are completely of Jain architecture. The pillars of earlier mosques have practically no difference with the Jain temple pillars. The close relationship between traders and weavers had probably cemented by conversion to Islam. During 950-1200 AD, there were large number of Sufis, Fakirs, wandering poets, singing minstrels, etc. among Muslims all over Tamilnadu. Nadirshah with 500 disciples settled down in ‘Trichinopoly’ during 1000 AD. Aliyar Shah and his disciples made Madurai as their centre. Baba Fakhruddin travelled all over Tamilnadu. Nagur became another Sufi centre. The Muslim religious literature of Tamilnadu of that period was least different from those created by Jains and Hindus during the ‘Bhakti’ movement.’
Prof. Bahauddin recounts the spread of Jainism and Buddhism in Kerala, thus: ‘Jainism spread in North Kerala around 200 BC. The Jain architectural remains in Canara and Malabar are not available anywhere else in South of Nepal. While Jainism entered North Kerala via Mangalore, Salem, Coimbatore and Wayanad, it entered Southern Kerala from Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil, Chitharal, etc. The hill near Anamala, which was an important Jain centre, is still called ‘Jain Durgam’. The close-by Kurumala was also a Jain centre. From Anamala through Munnar, Devikulam, Kothamangalam, Perumbavoor, etc. they reached Neryamangalam, Kothamangalam, Perumbavoor and other places. The ‘Kallil Kshetram’ in Perumbavoor is an important Jain monument as also the ‘Jainmedu’ in Vadakethara village of Palakkad district. Kerala's cave temples at Chitharal, Kallil, Trikur, Erunilamkode (Thrissur district) and Thiruveghapuram (Palakkad district) were constructed during the period of Jain King Mahendra Verman-I (610-640 AD). Temple records of Rameswaram, Sucheendram, Poothadi (Wayanad), Keenalur (Kozhicode) , etc. show that they were part of ‘Kunavai Koottam’ during 10-11th centuries. ‘Koottam’ is the place of living for Jain Sanyasis. Temple records show that all these present-day Hindu temples were Jain religious places till 11th century. Place names with Kallu, Poothan, Aathan, Kotha, Palli, Ambalam, etc. were all Jain centres. Spread all over Kerala, names of these places show that Buddhism and Jainism were widespread. The famous Kalpathi in Palakkad district was a Buddhist-Jain centre. The ‘Ratholsavam’ there is akin to the ‘Kettukazhcha’ of Buddhists. The present Bhagavati temples were also Jain temples. The group, ‘Adikal’, had a prominent position among Jains who became ‘Pisharadi’ after absorption of Jainism in Hinduism.’
‘Similarly, the Buddhist stoopa at Kodungallore, located in Methala village South-East of Thrikanamathilakam, is an important Buddhist ruin in Kerala…. Mahismathi was the capital of Chera King Satyaputran, which shows the relationship of Chera country (Kerala) with Buddhism. There is a reference in ‘Manimekhala’ about a Buddhist Chaityam in Kerala. While Vadakkumnatha Temple at Thrissur and Kurumba Temple at Kodungallore were Buddhist temples, Buddha statues were discovered from Kollam, Alappuzha, Mavelikara, Pallikkal, Karumadi and other places…. Treating mental patients in Thiruvadi temple and leprosy patients in Thakazhi temple shows that they were Buddhist temples since these kind of humanitarian services were not rendered out from Hindu temples…. By 900 AD Buddhism and Jainism were almost wiped out from Tamilnadu. The second settlement wave of Brahmins in Kerala during 900 AD was with Pandyan Kings' support. Karnataka and Kerala were the only two states where Buddhism and Jainism were still surviving and the second immigration of Brahmins might have been for driving out these two religions from the remaining places.’
Prof. Bahauddin recalls: ‘Very few people know that Buddhism and Jainism were the prominent religions of Kerala till 1200 AD. I was also under the impression that Hinduism was in Kerala from the very beginning. When facts were pieced together, a different picture emerged. Only from the end of 1800 AD the evidence became available about Buddha, Buddhism, Ashoka, etc. That fact itself is a pathetic story….’
Adds Dr. Jayaprakash in conclusion: ‘This is what really happened in India, the land of Buddha. But our so-called eminent historians, except a few, are bent upon eclipsing the cruelty done to Buddhists in India. These pseudo historians have succeeded in creating an impression that India is a land of righteousness and toleration. The entire world has been duped by them. The deed on the part of Taliban can be justified on the ground that Islam does not permit idols. But one has to note that Islam does not allow the demolition of other people's religious centres and images. Whatever may be the argument for and against Taliban action, the Hindu atrocities on Buddhism in India has no parallel in the entire world history of religious struggle. Let the world know the cruel and crooked face of the ‘Indian vulture without culture’!
(Reference: http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15042001/Art06.htm)
Says Jayaprakash: ‘The ruthless demolition of Buddha statues by Taliban has courted severe criticism from different quarters of the world. Surprisingly, the BJP-led Indian Government, supported by all Hindutva forces, also condemned the Taliban action. It is a paradox that the forerunners of the present Hindutva forces in India had wantonly destroyed not only Buddhist statues but also killed Buddhists in India. Therefore, any impartial student of history would unequivocally say that these Hindutva forces have no moral right to criticize Taliban now.’
He elaborates: ‘Hundreds of Buddhist statues, stupas and viharas have been destroyed in India between 830 and 966 AD in the name of Hindu revivalism. Both literary and archaeological sources within and outside India speak volumes about the havoc done to Buddhism by Hindu fanatics. Spiritual leaders like Sankaracharya and many Hindu kings and rulers took pride in demolishing Buddhist images aiming at the total eradication of Buddhist culture. Today, their descendants destroyed the Babri Masjid and also published the list of mosques to be targeted in future. It is with this sin of pride that they presently condemn Taliban.’
Prof. Bahauddin elaborates the selfish compulsions of Brahminism to wipe-out Buddhism: ‘Buddhism tried to create a dynamic society in ancient India. Jainism also contributed its share. As Buddhism spread, iron ploughs and implement were used for development of agriculture. As a result, new areas were cultivated and agricultural productivity increased, apart from developing trade centres and road links. Subsistence-level economy changed to a surplus economy with grain storage facilities, exchange of goods, trade and development of bureaucratic administration. This also created social change - from elans consisting several families to tribes consisting several elans of similar socio-economic conditions. The emphasis of Brahmins, on the other hand, was for receiving and giving alms and not on production of goods. Those who give and receive alms were close to Gods and those who produce were considered as inferior. According to Manusmriti, a Sudra should not have wealth of his own. In case he has any, a Brahmin as his master can take it over without any hesitation. ‘Rigveda’ goes a step further to kill those who do not give ‘danam’ to the Brahmins. In other words, someone has to produce goods so that others can give ‘danam’ to the recipient Brahmins. It was against this system of 'downgrading those who produce' that Buddhism came into being.’
Recalls Dr. Jayaprakash: ‘The Hindu ruler Pushyamitra Sunga had destroyed 84,000 Buddhist stupas which were built by Emperor Ashoka. This was followed by the demolition of Buddhist centres in Magadha. Thousands of Buddhist saints were killed mercilessly. King Jalaluka destroyed the Buddha viharas within his jurisdiction on the ground that chanting of hymns by Buddhists disturbed his sleep! In Kashmir, King Kinnara demolished thousands of viharas and captured the Buddhist villages to please Brahmins. A large number of Buddha viharas were usurped by Brahmins and converted into Hindu temples where entry of ‘untouchables’ was prohibited. Notably, Buddhist places were regularized as Hindu temples by writing Puranas, which were invented myths or pseudo history. The important temples at Tirupathi, Aihole, Undavalli, Ellora, Bengal, Puri, Badarinath, Mathura, Ayodhya, Sringeri, Bodhigaya, Saranath, Delhi, Nalanda, Gudimallam, Nagarjunakonda, Srisailam and Sabarimala are some of the striking examples of Brahminical usurpation of Buddhist centres.’
Detailing the divergence in both orientation and essence between Buddhism and Hinduism, Prof. Bahauddin says: ‘Equality, compassion, non-violence, utilization of human abilities for general welfare, etc. were the cardinal principles of Buddhism. According to ‘Sathpatha Brahmanam (22-6, 3-4-14), on the other hand, the whole universe is controlled by God, God is controlled by Mantram and Mantram is with Brahmins and, therefore, Brahmins are God (on earth). They used Mantram and Sapam to instil fear in the people to obey them, while Buddhism encouraged people to observe visible facts, to apply reason to get out of fear. Buddhism also encouraged people to do good things, besides guiding Kings to look after the people's welfare. Buddhism considers the general welfare of the people, while Brahminism considers that the whole world was created for them all along. And, there is bound to be conflict between these two opposite ways of thinking.’
According to Dr Jayaprakash, Sakaracharya had played ‘a demon's role’ in destruction of Buddhist statues and monuments at Nagarjunakonda (in present-day Andhra Pradesh). ‘A. N. Longhurst, who conducted excavations at Nagarjunakonda, had recorded this in his invaluable book, Memoirs of the Archaeological Survey of India No. 54, The Buddhist Antiquities of Nagarjunakonda (Delhi, 1938, p. 6). The ruthless manner in which all the buildings at Nagarjunakonda have been destroyed is simply appalling and cannot represent the work of treasure-seekers alone since so many pillars, statues, and sculptures have been wantonly smashed to pieces. Local tradition relates that the great Hindu philosopher and teacher, Sankaracharya, came to Nagarjunakonda with a host of followers and destroyed the Buddhist monuments. The cultivated lands on which ruined buildings stand represent a religious grant made to Sankaracharya.’
Quoting Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, Prof. Bahauddin says that the conflict against Brahmin supremacy had, in fact, started before Buddhist period, between Vasishta Muni, a Brahmin, and Viswamitra, a non-Brahmin. ‘The dispute was about the learning of ‘Vedas’, the right to conduct religious ceremony, to receive gifts, and to perform coronation of King. Vasishta Muni insisted that these were the exclusive privileges of Brahmins, while Viswamitra was opposed to such exclusive rights. This dispute lasted for long period, and even Kings joined in it (Writings and Speeches of Dr. Ambedkar, vol. 7, p. 148-155. It was won by Brahmins.’
Prof. Bahauddin lists the different stages of Brahmin hostility against Buddhism: ‘1) 483-273 BC: The period after Buddha's death upto Ashoka's rule when attempts were made to include Brahminical ideas in Buddhist ideology. 2) 273-200 BC: When Buddhism spread all over India and became a world religion. 3) 200 BC-500 AD: The period when all possible efforts were made to disintegrate Buddhism from within by adulterating Buddhist teachings with Brahminical ideas and also through physical annihilation from outside. As a result, Buddhism divided itself into 18 sects, of which Hinayana and Mahayana were prominent ones. 4) 500-700 AD: Brahminism gained supremacy in North India and efforts began to drive out Buddhism and Jainism from South India. 5) 700-1100 AD: Brahminism gained supremacy in South India and, with added vigour, it moved again to North India to obtain complete supremacy over Buddhism and Jainism. 6) 1100-1400 AD: Buddhism and Jainism were destroyed from the remaining Southern States of Karnataka and Kerala and, thus, total supremacy of Brahminism all over India was achieved.’
Adds Dr. Jayaprakash: ‘Within Kerala, Sankaracharya and his close associate Kumarila Bhatta, an avowed foe of Buddhism, organized a religious crusade against Buddhists. A vivid description of Sankaracharya's pleasure of seeing people of non-Brahminic faith being burnt to death is available in ‘Sankara Digvijaya’. Kumarila instigated King Suddhanvan of Ujjain to exterminate Buddhists. The ‘Mricchakatika’ of Sudraka describes how the King's brother-in-law in Ujjain inhumanly tortured the Buddhist monks, by using them as bullocks by inserting a string through their nose and yoking them to the cart! The ‘Keralolpathi’ documents the extermination of Buddhism from Kerala by Kumarila. About the activities of Sankaracharya, even Vivekananda had observed: ‘And, such was the heart of Sankara that he burnt to death lots of Buddhist monks by defeating them in argument. What can you call such action on Sankara's part except fanaticism’ (Complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. III, p. 118, Calcutta, 1997).’
According to Dr. Jayaprakash, there are hundreds of places in Kerala having names ‘palli’ either affixed or suffixed with them. ‘Karunagapalli, Karthikapalli, Pallickal, Pallippuram, Edappally, etc. are some examples of these places. The term ‘palli’ means a Buddha vihara. Notably, Kerala had 1200 years of Buddhist tradition. Earlier, the schools in Malayalam were called as ‘Ezhuthupalli’ or ‘Pallikoodam’. It is also worth noticing that the Christians and Muslims in Kerala use the term ‘palli’ to denote their church and mosque alike. These ‘pallies’ or viharas had been ruthlessly demolished by the Hindu forces under the leadership of Sankaracharya and Kumarila. They could exterminate 1200 years of Buddhist tradition and converted Kerala into a Brahminical state based on the ‘Chaturvarna’ system. Original inhabitants of Kerala, like the Ezhavas, Pulayas, etc., were crushed under the weight of casteism. Many a viharas was transformed into temples and majority of people were prevented from entering temples under the pretext of caste pollution. It can also be noted that the name ‘Kerala’ is the Sanskritised Aryan version of the Dravidian and Buddhist term ‘Cherala’. The Parasurama legend is nothing but an invented myth for regularizing the Brahminical ‘Kerala’ hiding its glorious Buddhist traditions.’
Jainism, too, met with the same fate in South India. Prof. Bahauddin elaborates: ‘Very little information is available about growth of Jainism in South India during 300-400 AD. The Jain book, ‘Digambara Darsana’, recounts the starting of a Sangham at Madurai in 470 AD and Jainism became widespread and strong during 500-600 AD (Kumaraswamy Iyengar, ‘Studies in South Indian Jainism’, p. 51-58)….. The Jains used to instal the images of their saints in their religious places, a practice which was followed by Brahmins. Hindu temples appeared all over Tamilnadu probably after converting the Jain religious places. The idols of 63 Brahmin Sanyasis, who led destruction of Jainism, still adorn the walls of some Hindu temples in Tamilnadu. The remains of destroyed Jain idols, their abandoned religious and living places are scattered all over Tamilnadu to narrate their story. Frescos depicting the kings of Jains could be seen on the walls near the Golden Tank at Madurai Meenakshi Temple where, of the total 12 annual festivals, five depict the killing of Jains according to Kumaraswamy Iyengar (p. 78-79).’
According to Dr. Jayaprakash, a number of Buddha statues have been discovered at places like Ambalapuzha, Karunagapalli, Pallickal, Bharanikkavu, Mavelikara and Neelamperur in Kerala. ‘They are either in the form of smashed pieces or thrown away from viharas. Lord Ayyappa of Sabarimala and Lord Padmanabha at Thiruvananthapuram are the proxy images of Buddha being worshipped as Vishnu. Hundreds of Buddhists were killed on the banks of Aluva river. The term ‘Aluva’ was derived from ‘Alawai’ which means ‘Trisul’, a weapon used by Hindu fanatics to stab Buddhists. Similarly, on the banks of the Vaigai river in Tamilnadu, thousands of Buddhists were killed by the Vaishnava Saint, Sambanthar. Thevaram, a Tamil book, documents this brutal extermination of Buddhism.’
Prof. Bahauddin recalls the strong reasons to believe that a large section of Jains had embraced Islam: ‘The spread of Islam in Tamilnadu can be considered in three or four stages. Islam spread in Kerala and Tamilnadu when Jainism was under pressure (650-750 AD). The new religion was received without resistance…. Since Islam considers every human being with equality Jainism and Buddhism had no conflict with it. When Muhammad ibn Al-Qasim attacked Sindh, the Buddhists supported him because they were facing annihilation at that time. A similar situation was prevailing in South India during 650-750 AD…. Muslims in Tamilnadu are called Anchuvanthar, Labba (teacher), Rauthar, Marakar (sailor) or Jonakan (Yavankan). The Anchuvanam is the guild of traders and groups of artisans. The Muslim mohallas of ‘Anchuvan Vamsagar’, ‘Anchuvanathar’, etc. are scattered all over Tamilnadu and seem to be the en bloc conversion of Jain guilds engaged in different activities, especially weaving. Those who ran away from Tamilnadu settled down in Sravanabalagola and Gomatheswaram in Karnataka. And, those who could not leave due to their economic interests converted to Islam. If we analyze the body structure, food, language, dress, ornaments, customs and habits of Anchuvanthar, it could be see that those are a continuation of Jain way of living and customs.
Till recently, the weavers in such Muslim mohallas will not eat at noon or night, and take only one meal before dusk. This was a continuation of Jain habits. There is a separate place in such villages called ‘Odukkam’ where Jain Munist used to sit in prayer. On the last Wednesday of the month called ‘Odukkathae’ Wednesday, the Muslims gather together to sing religious songs, which is also a Jain tradition. When religious functions like Maulood, Rathif, etc. are organized in the house, a white cloth with lotus symbol on it called ‘Mekett’ is tied, which resembles the ‘Asmanagiri’ of the Jains…. The architecture of Muslim stone mosques are completely of Jain architecture. The pillars of earlier mosques have practically no difference with the Jain temple pillars. The close relationship between traders and weavers had probably cemented by conversion to Islam. During 950-1200 AD, there were large number of Sufis, Fakirs, wandering poets, singing minstrels, etc. among Muslims all over Tamilnadu. Nadirshah with 500 disciples settled down in ‘Trichinopoly’ during 1000 AD. Aliyar Shah and his disciples made Madurai as their centre. Baba Fakhruddin travelled all over Tamilnadu. Nagur became another Sufi centre. The Muslim religious literature of Tamilnadu of that period was least different from those created by Jains and Hindus during the ‘Bhakti’ movement.’
Prof. Bahauddin recounts the spread of Jainism and Buddhism in Kerala, thus: ‘Jainism spread in North Kerala around 200 BC. The Jain architectural remains in Canara and Malabar are not available anywhere else in South of Nepal. While Jainism entered North Kerala via Mangalore, Salem, Coimbatore and Wayanad, it entered Southern Kerala from Tirunelveli, Kanyakumari, Nagercoil, Chitharal, etc. The hill near Anamala, which was an important Jain centre, is still called ‘Jain Durgam’. The close-by Kurumala was also a Jain centre. From Anamala through Munnar, Devikulam, Kothamangalam, Perumbavoor, etc. they reached Neryamangalam, Kothamangalam, Perumbavoor and other places. The ‘Kallil Kshetram’ in Perumbavoor is an important Jain monument as also the ‘Jainmedu’ in Vadakethara village of Palakkad district. Kerala's cave temples at Chitharal, Kallil, Trikur, Erunilamkode (Thrissur district) and Thiruveghapuram (Palakkad district) were constructed during the period of Jain King Mahendra Verman-I (610-640 AD). Temple records of Rameswaram, Sucheendram, Poothadi (Wayanad), Keenalur (Kozhicode) , etc. show that they were part of ‘Kunavai Koottam’ during 10-11th centuries. ‘Koottam’ is the place of living for Jain Sanyasis. Temple records show that all these present-day Hindu temples were Jain religious places till 11th century. Place names with Kallu, Poothan, Aathan, Kotha, Palli, Ambalam, etc. were all Jain centres. Spread all over Kerala, names of these places show that Buddhism and Jainism were widespread. The famous Kalpathi in Palakkad district was a Buddhist-Jain centre. The ‘Ratholsavam’ there is akin to the ‘Kettukazhcha’ of Buddhists. The present Bhagavati temples were also Jain temples. The group, ‘Adikal’, had a prominent position among Jains who became ‘Pisharadi’ after absorption of Jainism in Hinduism.’
‘Similarly, the Buddhist stoopa at Kodungallore, located in Methala village South-East of Thrikanamathilakam, is an important Buddhist ruin in Kerala…. Mahismathi was the capital of Chera King Satyaputran, which shows the relationship of Chera country (Kerala) with Buddhism. There is a reference in ‘Manimekhala’ about a Buddhist Chaityam in Kerala. While Vadakkumnatha Temple at Thrissur and Kurumba Temple at Kodungallore were Buddhist temples, Buddha statues were discovered from Kollam, Alappuzha, Mavelikara, Pallikkal, Karumadi and other places…. Treating mental patients in Thiruvadi temple and leprosy patients in Thakazhi temple shows that they were Buddhist temples since these kind of humanitarian services were not rendered out from Hindu temples…. By 900 AD Buddhism and Jainism were almost wiped out from Tamilnadu. The second settlement wave of Brahmins in Kerala during 900 AD was with Pandyan Kings' support. Karnataka and Kerala were the only two states where Buddhism and Jainism were still surviving and the second immigration of Brahmins might have been for driving out these two religions from the remaining places.’
Prof. Bahauddin recalls: ‘Very few people know that Buddhism and Jainism were the prominent religions of Kerala till 1200 AD. I was also under the impression that Hinduism was in Kerala from the very beginning. When facts were pieced together, a different picture emerged. Only from the end of 1800 AD the evidence became available about Buddha, Buddhism, Ashoka, etc. That fact itself is a pathetic story….’
Adds Dr. Jayaprakash in conclusion: ‘This is what really happened in India, the land of Buddha. But our so-called eminent historians, except a few, are bent upon eclipsing the cruelty done to Buddhists in India. These pseudo historians have succeeded in creating an impression that India is a land of righteousness and toleration. The entire world has been duped by them. The deed on the part of Taliban can be justified on the ground that Islam does not permit idols. But one has to note that Islam does not allow the demolition of other people's religious centres and images. Whatever may be the argument for and against Taliban action, the Hindu atrocities on Buddhism in India has no parallel in the entire world history of religious struggle. Let the world know the cruel and crooked face of the ‘Indian vulture without culture’!
(Reference: http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/15042001/Art06.htm)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
